Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

U.M.B. Bank, 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
umb-bank-et-al
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 U.M.B. Bank, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Nov 17, 2020

Park Ridge Associates, et al., Appellant, vs. U.M.B. Bank, et al., Respondent.

Respondent

Appellants Park Ridge Associates, et al., appealed the dismissal of their claims against U.M.B. Bank, et al., stemming from the foreclosure and non-judicial sale of an apartment development. Appellants alleged breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, contending the foreclosure price was artificially low due to Respondents' misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, concluding that Appellants' claims were barred by the Credit Agreement Statute or failed to state a cause of action under Missouri law and the express terms of the parties' contract.