Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Citation
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Parent Document
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2001-01-23
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
- Central Bank of Kansas City v. Mika, 36 S.W.3d 772 (2001)
Full Text
540 charsThe Mikas argue that the trial court erred in granting the Bank’s motion for summary judgment in its complaint in unlawful detainer because the Bank did not acquire “legal title” to the property at issue. According to the Mikas, the bank was not “legally entitled to possession of the property,” as required by §§ 534.200 1 and 534.0302, RSMo 1994, because the *774Bank did not obtain “legal title” to the property in that the Bank defrauded them into agreeing to the foreclosure sale by falsely representing it as a “friendly foreclosure.”