Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

SHEILA SINGLETON, et al., 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
sheila-singleton-et-al-defendants
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 SHEILA SINGLETON, et al., Defendants-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Lillian Singleton sought to reform a 1995 warranty deed, claiming it incorrectly included her deceased son, Dennis, as a remainderman for Tract I, intending him only for Tract II. The trial court reformed the deed, divesting Dennis's heirs (Appellants) of their interest. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court misapplied the law by reforming the deed based solely on Lillian's unilateral mistake, without clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of fraud or mutual mistake, as required by controlling Supreme Court precedent.