Opinion
No. ED 103134
05-17-2016
Pulaski Financial Corporation, d/b/a Pulaski Bank, Respondent, v. Helen Pollak, Appellant.
Charles W. Gray, Jr., 225 S. Meramec, Suite 411, St. Louis, MO 63105, Michael Babcock, 101 West Argonne Ave., # 163, Kirkwood, MO 63122, for appellant. Bradley M. Mitchell, P.O. Box 10110, Columbia, MO 65205, for respondent.
Charles W. Gray, Jr., 225 S. Meramec, Suite 411, St. Louis, MO 63105, Michael Babcock, 101 West Argonne Ave., # 163, Kirkwood, MO 63122, for appellant.
Bradley M. Mitchell, P.O. Box 10110, Columbia, MO 65205, for respondent.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, C.J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Helen Pollak (“Pollak”) appeals the trial court's judgment entering summary judgment in favor of Pulaski Bank (“Pulaski”) for balances due on three promissory notes. On appeal, Pollak claims that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed. Because Pollak did not raise a genuine issue of material fact, and because Pulaski was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in granting Pulaski's motion for summary judgment.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).