TXR, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent v. WILLIAM E. "WES" STRICKER and PAMELA H. "PAM" STRICKER ( 2014 )

Missouri Court of Appeals
Southern District
Division Two
TXR, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. SD33036
)
WILLIAM E. “WES” STRICKER and ) Filed June 27, 2014
PAMELA H. “PAM” STRICKER, )
)
Defendants-Appellants. )
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR TRANSFER
PER CURIAM. In their motion for rehearing or transfer, the Strickers take issue
with footnote 5 in the opinion. They assert that "[a] careful reading of the Legal file
would have noted that . . . the trial judge's prior opinion in the prior case" was before the
trial court here because it was attached "as an exhibit within the motion to compel
arbitration." While our careful reading of the legal file in drafting the opinion made us
well aware that this exhibit was attached to the Strickers' motion, we were also cognizant
of the law that "'[e]xhibits attached to motions filed with the trial court are not evidence
and are not self-proving.'" Ryan v. Raytown Dodge Co., 296 S.W.3d 471, 473 (Mo.App.
2009) (quoting Powell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 173 S.W.3d 685, 689
(Mo.App. 2005)).
The Strickers also assert: "Because [the opinion] never addresses it or discusses
it, Appellant presumes this Court overlooked the Appellant's argument with respect to the
doctrine of Contra Proferentem." They argue that "the ambiguous language in the
agreement must be construed against [TXR]." A cursory reading of the opinion,
however, reveals that our finding of no ambiguity precludes the consideration or
application of this doctrine.
The Strickers' motion for rehearing or transfer is denied.
2