Faerber v. Schaeffer

Missouri Court of Appeals

Faerber v. Schaeffer

190 S.W.3d 567, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 572, 2006 WL 1147713

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 87080

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 S.W.3d 567 (Faerber v. Schaeffer) 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

Faerber v. Schaeffer, 190 S.W.3d 567, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 572, 2006 WL 1147713 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Schaeffer, Konny Schaeffer, and Anchor Lumber Company (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) appeal from the judgment denying their Rule 74.06(b) motion to set aside the judgment entered against them and in favor of Linda S. Faerber, Trustee for the Harold J. Schaef-fer Lifetime Trust (collectively referred to as “Plaintiff’) in the amount of $259,669.12. Defendants contend the trial court erred in denying their Rule 74.06(b) motion to set aside the judgment because Plaintiff obtained the judgment through intrinsic fraud and the judgment was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Schaeffer, Konny Schaeffer, and Anchor Lumber Company (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) appeal from the judgment denying their Rule 74.06(b) motion to set aside the judgment entered against them and in favor of Linda S. Faerber, Trustee for the Harold J. Schaef-fer Lifetime Trust (collectively referred to as “Plaintiff’) in the amount of $259,669.12. Defendants contend the trial court erred in denying their Rule 74.06(b) motion to set aside the judgment because Plaintiff obtained the judgment through intrinsic fraud and the judgment was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 567, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 572, 2006 WL 1147713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faerber-v-schaeffer-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack