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

Case: Robert L. Devereux and Mary O. Devereux, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Household Mortgage Services, Inc., Defendant/Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-l-devereux-and-mary-o-devereux-plaintiffsappellants-v-household-mo-16767
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16767
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=Robert+L.+Devereux+and+Mary+O.+Devereux%2C+Plaintiffs%2FAppellants%2C+v.+Household+Mortgage+Services%2C+Inc.%2C+Defendant%2FRespondent.&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)
- Real Estate: https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=real-estate&ott_archive_query=Robert+L.+Devereux+and+Mary+O.+Devereux%2C+Plaintiffs%2FAppellants%2C+v.+Household+Mortgage+Services%2C+Inc.%2C+Defendant%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=text&ott_archive_link_score=4&ott_archive_link_evidence=text%3A+deed&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: real-estate; source: text; score: 4; evidence: text: deed)

---
## Opinion

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:  Robert L. Devereux and Mary O. Devereux, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Household Mortgage Services, 
Inc., Defendant/Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 70963
Handdown Date:  05/06/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED. Before Mary Rhodes Russell, P.J., Paul J. Simon, J., and Kent E. Karohl, J.
Opinion:

O R D E R
Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant to recover a statutory penalty under Section 443.130, RSMo 1994, 
asserting that defendant failed to deliver a deed of release within thirty days after their request and tender of 
costs.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant because plaintiffs did not tender to 
defendant the required costs for recording the deed of release. Plaintiffs appeal; we affirm.
An extended opinion would serve no precedential value.  However, the parties have been furnished with 
a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.  The judgment is 
affirmed pursuant to 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.