Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Brenda Todd and Bank of Kirksville Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
brenda-todd-and-bank-of-kirksville
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
Archive note: 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Brenda Todd and Bank of Kirksville

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Apr 21, 2020

Shirley Buxton vs. Brenda Todd and Bank of Kirksville

Respondent

Shirley Buxton sued Brenda Todd and Bank of Kirksville for conversion, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court dismissed Buxton's petition with prejudice via a docket entry, and later denied her motion to set aside the dismissal, concluding it had lost jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the initial dismissal was not a final judgment under Rule 74.01(a) because it was a docket entry not signed by the judge or denominated "judgment." Therefore, Rule 75.01's thirty-day jurisdictional limit did not apply, and the trial court retained jurisdiction. The case was remanded for further proceedings.