Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

HAUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, BRIAN HAUFF and NICOLE HAUFF, Defendants- 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
hauff-and-associates-llc-brian-hauff-and-nicole-hauff-defendants
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 HAUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, BRIAN HAUFF and NICOLE HAUFF, Defendants-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Darinda Baggett sued Hauff and Associates, LLC, Brian Hauff, and Nicole Hauff for breach of a promissory note and guarantee related to the sale of her business. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Baggett, finding the defendants breached the note and guarantee, and awarded Baggett damages, interest, and attorney fees. On appeal, the defendants argued that Baggett lacked standing and capacity to sue, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the defendants waived their argument regarding Baggett's capacity to sue by failing to raise it in a timely motion or responsive pleading.