Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Chrysler Financial Corp., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Paul D. Burton and Linda Burton, Husband and Wife, Defendants/Appellants.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/chrysler-financial-corp-plaintiffrespondent-v-paul-d-burton-and-linda-bur-12955
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12955
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Chrysler+Financial+Corp.%2C+Plaintiff%2FRespondent%2C+v.+Paul+D.+Burton+and+Linda+Burton%2C+Husband+and+Wife%2C+Defendants%2FAppellants.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=20&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 20; evidence: tag: criminal-law)

---
## Syllabus

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Chrysler Financial Corp., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Paul D. Burton and Linda Burton, Husband and 
Wife, Defendants/Appellants.
Case Number:  72296
Handdown Date:  03/17/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Pike County, Hon. J. Rockne Calhoun
Counsel for Appellant:  David H. Ash
Counsel for Respondent:  Nelson L. Mitten and Jill J. Laux
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J. concur
Opinion:

---

## PER CURIAM

Appellants appeal the judgment of the Associate Division of the Circuit Court claiming the trial court erred: 1)  in 
failing   to   grant   judgment   for   defendants   because   plaintiff   failed   to  prove   its   corporate  status  and   failed  to   prove   the 
contract signed by defendants was assigned to the plaintiff and 2) in giving plaintiff judgment for a deficiency because the 
sale made by plaintiff of the repossessed vehicle was not "commercially reasonable."
We have read the briefs, reviewed the legal file and transcript.   We find no error of law and no jurisprudential 
purpose will be served by an extended written opinion.  The motion to strike appellants' brief is hereby denied.  Judgment 
is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.