Carnell v. Menz

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carnell v. Menz

495 S.W.3d 210, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 696, 2016 WL 4040105

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 19, 2016·No. ED 103473·Published

Opinion

[211] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marty J. Menz and Jerri L. Menz.(col-lectively, “Appellants”), husband1 and wife, appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting their neighbor Brenda CarnelTs (“Respondent”) Second Amended Petition for trespass and ejectment over an eight-foot wide patch of land. We affirm. . .

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to’ Rule 84.16(b).

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

[211] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marty J. Menz and Jerri L. Menz.(col-lectively, “Appellants”), husband1 and wife, appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting their neighbor Brenda CarnelTs (“Respondent”) Second Amended Petition for trespass and ejectment over an eight-foot wide patch of land. We affirm. . .

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to’ Rule 84.16(b).

Carnell v. Menz, 495 S.W.3d 210, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 696, 2016 WL 4040105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

495 S.W.3d 210 (Carnell v. Menz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.