{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"ethan-cupit-et-al","displayName":"Ethan Cupit, et al","totalCases":1},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82683:2020-01-28","opinionId":"706c70f5-db9a-59fd-bd95-ee8bfeaf7d01","slug":"ethan-cupit-et-al-v-dry-basement-inc-d82683","caseName":"Ethan Cupit, et al\nvs.\nDry Basement, Inc.","caseNumber":"WD82683","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-01-28","year":2020,"display_summary":"Ethan and Ruth Cupit sued Dry Basement, Inc. under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) for issues with a basement sealing system. A jury awarded the Cupits $1,500, but the initial judgment did not address their request for attorney's fees. The trial court later entered a final judgment awarding the Cupits $57,775 in attorney's fees. On cross-appeals, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's final judgment, holding that the initial judgment was not final due to the unresolved attorney's fees issue, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its attorney's fee award. The court also remanded the case for the trial court to determine and award the Cupits reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defending Dry Basement's appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","other","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=149415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ethan-cupit-et-al-v-dry-basement-inc-d82683","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: civil-procedure","topic: appellate-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"}]}