Big Valley, Inc. v. First Nat. Bank, 11690
| Decision Date | 20 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 11690,11690 |
| Citation | 624 S.W.2d 193 |
| Parties | BIG VALLEY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Margaret Bush Wilson, Wilson, Smith & McCullin, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-appellants.
William C. Morgan, Arthur B. Cohn, Waynesville, for defendants-respondents.
This is an action to enjoin a foreclosure under a power of sale in a deed of trust and for an accounting and determination of the balance due defendant, First National Bank of Pulaski County, from plaintiffs on a promissory note in the sum of $63,500. A hearing was held, after which the trial court dissolved a restraining order it had issued to stop the proposed sale and dismissed plaintiffs' petition. Plaintiffs appealed.
This court set aside the trial court's judgment dissolving the restraining order, and remanded the cause to the trial court for an accounting to determine the balance due defendants. Big Valley, Inc. v. First Nat. Bank, Etc., 578 S.W.2d 616 (Mo.App.1979). The trial court then set the case for hearing, and issued a pre-trial order directing plaintiffs to prepare and file a schedule of payments or credits they contended should be allowed against their indebtedness, and directed defendants to prepare and file a schedule of payments that they had allowed on plaintiffs' indebtedness.
Plaintiffs filed exceptions to the pre-trial order, contending that the trial court should designate a certified public accountant to make the accounting in question. The trial court overruled the exceptions, and the schedules ordered by the trial court were filed.
A hearing was then held, and plaintiffs and defendants presented testimonial and documentary evidence. After the hearing, the trial court filed findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment. The judgment recited that defendant, First National Bank of Pulaski County, had made an accounting for all sums paid to it by, or on behalf of, plaintiffs; that, as of September 7, 1976, plaintiffs owed defendant bank $31,541.39 on the note in question, and that no payments had been made on such balance since that date, that defendant bank was entitled to 8% interest on said balance, and dissolved the order restraining the foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs appealed.
On appeal, plaintiffs rely on four points containing 17 sub-points of claimed trial court error. They run the gamut from summarily ruling against the plaintiffs on the issue of whether they had defaulted on the note to making a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
...than the supporting argument. Many of these points do not state wherein or why the rulings were incorrect. Big Valley, Inc. v. First National Bank, 624 S.W.2d 193, 194 (Mo.App.1981). The requirements of Rule 84.04(d) are mandatory. Black v. Cowan Construction Co., 738 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Mo.Ap......
-
Kan. City Area Transp. Auth. v. Donovan
...trial court erred in the context of the Donovans’ case, they do not comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1). See Big Valley, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank , 624 S.W.2d 193, 194 (Mo. App. S.D. 1981) (point relied on—which claimed the trial court erred in making a faulty conclusion of law that the defendant ......
-
Jones v. Buck
...anything for review.” Prather v. City of Carl Junction, 345 S.W.3d 261, 265 (Mo.App. S.D.2011) (quoting Big Valley, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank, 624 S.W.2d 193, 194 (Mo.App. S.D.1981)). A point that does not explain why the legal reasons support the claim of reversible error merits dismissal. ......
-
Hoffman v. Koehler
...stating why they are errors, does not satisfy Rule 84.04(d) nor does it preserve the question for review. Big Valley, Inc. v. First National Bank, 624 S.W.2d 193, 194 (Mo.App.1981). The rationale for Rule 84.04(d) has been explained as follows: The requirement that the point relied on clear......