Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Patricia C. Berezo 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
patricia-c-berezo
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Patricia C. Berezo

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 4, 2021

Patricia C. Berezo, Appellant, vs. Lalo Berezo, et al., Respondent.

Appellant

Patricia Berezo appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and motion to dismiss, which denied her access to funds in her late husband's trust and awarded attorney's fees to the successor trustee. She argued she was a trust beneficiary as "Grantor's wife," that a proposed amendment to the trust was valid, and that she was an an omitted spouse entitled to invade the trust. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trust unambiguously limited benefits to the first wife, the amendment was not properly executed, and the omitted spouse statute did not allow her to invade the trust. The court also affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the successor trustee.