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
869 chars' The trial court granted the Bank’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Bank was entitled to possession as a matter of law. The Mikas contend that the foreclosure sale was “wrought with fraud, the sale was chilled, [and] there was not free and fair competition among the bidders at the foreclosure sale” because the Bank was able to purchase the property for far less than its market value. The Mikas also contend the Bank deceived the defendants into foregoing their redemption rights through the artifice of representing the sale as a “friendly foreclosure,” and promising to deed the property back to the Mikas. The Mikas contend that because there were “material facts in dispute” with regard to the propriety of the foreclosure sale, and because the Bank never acquired the “legal right” to the property, the court’s summary judgment ruling was in error.