F.A. Chapman & Carol Chapman, Defendant/Appellant, v. Commerce Bank of St. Louis, N.A., Plaintiff/Respondent.

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: F.A. Chapman & Carol Chapman, Defendant/Appellant, v. Commerce Bank of St. Louis, N.A., Plaintiff/Respondent. Case Number: 72277 Handdown Date: 01/20/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Kenneth M. Romines Counsel for Appellant: Alan J. Agathen Counsel for Respondent: Brad D. Pierce Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. R. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER F.A. Chapman & Carol Chapman (Chapmans) appeal from the denial of their motion to contest jurisdiction and set aside revival of judgment against them. On appeal, Chapmans contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion to set aside the revival of judgment against them because the revival was void in that the trial court, in 1991, had lacked jurisdiction to enter the order on the motion of St. Louis County Bank for the reason that St. Louis County Bank was a nonexistent legal entity at the time. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and the reasons for this order. The 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.