Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Shirley R. Ebert, et al., Respondents/Cross- 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
shirley-r-ebert-et-al-respondents/cross
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Shirley R. Ebert, et al., Respondents/Cross-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Mark and Cindy Ebert appealed from a trial court's judgment regarding real estate transactions and personal loans with Shirley R. Ebert, Mark's mother, who also cross-appealed. The appellate court reversed the judgment holding Mark and Cindy liable on the American Heritage Loan, finding it barred by the five-year statute of limitations. It also reversed the judgment holding Cindy liable for the Flight School Loan due to lack of privity. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the 2002 real estate contract was unenforceable due to an indefinite price term but reversed the denial of an easement by implication, remanding for entry of judgment consistent with the opinion.