Con-Tech Carpentry, Inc. v. Vouga Construction, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Con-Tech Carpentry, Inc. v. Vouga Construction, Inc.

84 S.W.3d 520, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1858

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 10, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80392

StatusPublished

This text of 84 S.W.3d 520 (Con-Tech Carpentry, Inc. v. Vouga Construction, Inc.) 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

Con-Tech Carpentry, Inc. v. Vouga Construction, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 520, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1858 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Con-Tech Carpentry, Inc. (hereinafter, “Con-Tech”) raises one allegation of error. Con-Tech appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing, with prejudice, the claim of Equitable Enforcement of Mechanics Lien, ruling that Con-Tech did not serve Robert J. Auffenberg, Jr. (hereinafter, “Auffenberg”) with the notice required by Section 429.100 RSMo (2000). Con-Tech claims that Auffenberg concealed himself, absconded, or was absent from his usual place of abode and it properly served him pursuant to Section 429.110 RSMo (2000).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence, and the judgment was neither against the weight of the evidence nor erroneously declared or applied the law. Commercial Openings, Inc. v. Mathews, 819 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. banc 1991). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Con-Tech Carpentry, Inc. (hereinafter, “Con-Tech”) raises one allegation of error. Con-Tech appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing, with prejudice, the claim of Equitable Enforcement of Mechanics Lien, ruling that Con-Tech did not serve Robert J. Auffenberg, Jr. (hereinafter, “Auffenberg”) with the notice required by Section 429.100 RSMo (2000). Con-Tech claims that Auffenberg concealed himself, absconded, or was absent from his usual place of abode and it properly served him pursuant to Section 429.110 RSMo (2000).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence, and the judgment was neither against the weight of the evidence nor erroneously declared or applied the law. Commercial Openings, Inc. v. Mathews, 819 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. banc 1991). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.W.3d 520, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/con-tech-carpentry-inc-v-vouga-construction-inc-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack