BOCKHOFF v. Schulze

Missouri Court of Appeals

BOCKHOFF v. Schulze

247 S.W.3d 16, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 178, 2008 WL 304781

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 5, 2008·No. ED 88422·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Bockhoff and Angela Bockhoff (Tenants) appeal from the amended judgment awarding Gene Schulze and Lois Schulze (Landlords) restitution for ejectment and $53,757.50 for breach of contract on Landlords’ counterclaim 1 in this action in which Tenants sought enforcement of a lease provision giving them the option to purchase the premises they leased from Landlords.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. The remaining counts of Tenants petition were subsequently dismissed prior to this appeal,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Bockhoff and Angela Bockhoff (Tenants) appeal from the amended judgment awarding Gene Schulze and Lois Schulze (Landlords) restitution for ejectment and $53,757.50 for breach of contract on Landlords’ counterclaim 1 in this action in which Tenants sought enforcement of a lease provision giving them the option to purchase the premises they leased from Landlords.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. The remaining counts of Tenants petition were subsequently dismissed prior to this appeal,

BOCKHOFF v. Schulze, 247 S.W.3d 16, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 178, 2008 WL 304781 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

247 S.W.3d 16 (BOCKHOFF v. Schulze) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related