Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Travis Carmack and Temple I. Baxley 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
travis-carmack-and-temple-i-baxley
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Travis Carmack and Temple I. Baxley

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Jun 23, 2020

Marilyn Carmack vs. Travis Carmack and Temple I. Baxley

Respondent

Marilyn Carmack's husband died after changing the primary beneficiary of his Individual Retirement Account (IRA) from her to his siblings, Travis Carmack and Temple Baxley, shortly after Marilyn entered a long-term care facility. Marilyn sued, alleging the change was a gift in fraud of her marital rights under section 474.150.1. The trial court found in favor of Marilyn. On appeal, the Siblings argued that the statute does not apply to IRAs and that there was insufficient evidence of fraudulent intent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that section 474.150.1 applies to IRAs and that substantial evidence supported the finding of fraudulent intent.