Younker v. Investment Realty, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 1 (2015)

Citation: Younker v. Investment Realty, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 1 (2015)
Parent Document: Younker v. Investment Realty, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 1 (2015)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2015-02-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5445505/younker-v-investment-realty-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,443 chars

Summary judgment is appropriately granted when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 74.04.5 “ ‘A material fact in the context of summary judgment is one from which the right to judgment flows’ ” Cent. Trust & Inv. Co. v. Signalpoint Asset Mgmt., LLC, 422 S.W.3d 312, 319 (Mo. banc 2014) (quoting Goerlitz v. City of Maryville, 333 S.W.3d 450, 453 (Mo. banc 2011)). A genuine issue exists as to one of the material facts underlying the moving party’s right to summary judgment where the record contains competent *5evidence that demonstrates two plausible, but contradictory, accounts of an essential fact. Birdsong v. Christians, 6 S.W.3d 218, 222 (Mo.App.1999) (citing ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 382 (Mo. banc 1993)). However, “ ‘[t]he key to summary judgment is the undisputed right to a judgment as a matter of law; not simply the absence of a fact .question.’ ” Birdsong, 6 S.W.3d at 223 (quoting Southard v. Buccaneer Homes Corp., 904 S.W.2d 525, 530 (Mo.App.1995)). Here, the trial court granted summary judgment in whole without specifying the basis for its decision. Nevertheless, “ ‘the trial court’s judgment may be affirmed on any basis supported by the record.’ ” Nail v. Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP, 436 S.W.3d 556, 561 (Mo. banc 2014) (quoting ITT Commercial Fin. Corp., 854 S.W.2d at 387-88).6

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text