Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Monarch Title of Northern Missouri, et al 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
monarch-title-of-northern-missouri-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Monarch Title of Northern Missouri, et al

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 26, 2018

J. Todd Frye, et al vs. Monarch Title of Northern Missouri, et al

Respondent

Appellants J. Todd Frye, et al., sued Monarch Title of Northern Missouri, alleging negligence in preparing a map and legal description for a land sale, which they claimed misled them about the acreage purchased. The trial court found Monarch Title was not negligent, and Appellants appealed, arguing the ruling was against the weight of the evidence and erroneously applied the law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the specific argument regarding the plat map was not preserved for appeal and, even if it had been, Monarch Title performed its duty as instructed by its clients.