HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Bolin, ED 104152

• Decision Date: 14 March 2017
• Docket Number: No. ED 104152,ED 104152
• Parties: HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Respondent, v. Donald BOLIN and Kimberly Bolin, Appellants, and John DOE and Mary Roe, Defendants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

519 S.W.3d 818 (Mem)

HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Respondent,

v.Donald BOLIN and Kimberly Bolin, Appellants,andJohn DOE and Mary Roe, Defendants.

No. ED 104152

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

FILED: March 14, 2017

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 27, 2017

Application for Transfer Denied June 27, 2017

Donald Bolin, Imperial, MO, acting Pro Se

Kimberly Bolin, Imperial, MO, acting Pro Se

Matthew Miguel Peters, Martin Leigh, PC, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent

Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Donald and Kimberly Bolin ("Appellants") appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment and judgment for possession of the property ("Judgment") in favor of HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. ("Respondent") on Respondent's action in unlawful detainer to obtain immediate possession of the property located at 5019 Meadow Drive, Imperial, MO 63052 (the "Property"). On appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in granting its Judgment in favor of Respondent because (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Respondent was not entitled to possession of the Property because it engaged in fraud in obtaining title to the Property. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).