Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Michael Grabb 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
michael-grabb
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Michael Grabb

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Michael Grabb, the son of Ronald Grabb, appealed the trial court's judgment awarding his father's IRA proceeds to Teresa Grabb, the father's ex-wife, as a non-probate asset. The son argued that the ex-wife's beneficiary designation was automatically revoked upon divorce under Missouri statute § 461.051.1. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the IRA's custodial agreement contained an express provision, permitted by § 461.051.2, stating that divorce would not automatically revoke beneficiary designations, and this provision was properly considered by the trial court.