Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

HUGO E. ZAMORA 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
hugo-e-zamora
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 HUGO E. ZAMORA

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Sep 12, 2023

JANE E. ZAMORA, Petitioner-Appellant v. HUGO E. ZAMORA, Respondent-Respondent

Respondent

Jane Zamora appealed the trial court's judgment in her dissolution of marriage action, challenging the classification of two real properties as marital property. Jane argued that the properties were excluded by written agreement or gifted to her by Hugo, her former husband. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Jane failed to overcome the presumption that the properties, acquired during the marriage, were marital property. The court concluded that the acknowledgements signed by Hugo did not constitute a valid written agreement to exclude the properties from marital property nor did they evidence a gift.