Doll v. Kiser

Missouri Court of Appeals

Doll v. Kiser

383 S.W.3d 70, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1346, 2012 WL 5207624

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 23, 2012·No. No. ED 98000·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

. Don Doll and Karen Doll (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of William C. Kiser and Eileen Rodriguez-Kiser (“Defendants”) on Plaintiffs’ petition to quiet title. We find that the trial court did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ claims for prescriptive easement and trespass. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

. Don Doll and Karen Doll (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of William C. Kiser and Eileen Rodriguez-Kiser (“Defendants”) on Plaintiffs’ petition to quiet title. We find that the trial court did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ claims for prescriptive easement and trespass. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Doll v. Kiser, 383 S.W.3d 70, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1346, 2012 WL 5207624 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

383 S.W.3d 70 (Doll v. Kiser) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.