Coleman v. Hirsch

Missouri Court of Appeals

Coleman v. Hirsch

182 S.W.3d 595, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1741, 2005 WL 3159743

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 2005

DocketED 85852

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.W.3d 595 (Coleman v. Hirsch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coleman v. Hirsch, 182 S.W.3d 595, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1741, 2005 WL 3159743 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William R. Hirsch and K. Barket (collectively Appellants) appeal and Janice H. Coleman (Mrs. Coleman) cross-appeals from a trial court judgment entered in favor of Mrs. Coleman and against Appellants and Ronald E. Coleman, Sr. 1 (Mr. Coleman) on Mrs. Coleman’s Amended Petition for Declaratory Judgment and to Quiet Title. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. 0Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award attorney’s fees to Mrs. Coleman. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. Although served by summons, Mr. Coleman failed to appear and was in default at the time of trial and is not a party to this appeal.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William R. Hirsch and K. Barket (collectively Appellants) appeal and Janice H. Coleman (Mrs. Coleman) cross-appeals from a trial court judgment entered in favor of Mrs. Coleman and against Appellants and Ronald E. Coleman, Sr. 1 (Mr. Coleman) on Mrs. Coleman’s Amended Petition for Declaratory Judgment and to Quiet Title. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. 0Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award attorney’s fees to Mrs. Coleman. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. Although served by summons, Mr. Coleman failed to appear and was in default at the time of trial and is not a party to this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.W.3d 595, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1741, 2005 WL 3159743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-hirsch-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack