J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- Citation
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- Parent Document
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2012-12-11
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- J & M Securities, LLC v. Brown, 388 S.W.3d 566 (2012)
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
- Section 408
Full Text
513 charsJ & M subsequently filed a motion for new trial or to amend the judgment. J & M argued its knowledge of Brown’s whereabouts was irrelevant and was used as a basis to erroneously deny it contractual interest. Further, J & M contended it did not fail to submit evidence regarding its request for attorney fees. J & M also maintained Brown did not submit as an affirmative defense that the contractual interest was procedurally or substantively unconscionable, and that it had no legal duty to file its suit earlier.