Gill Family Props., LLC v. Keith Smith Mech., LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gill Family Props., LLC v. Keith Smith Mech., LLC

570 S.W.3d 202

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 26, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106950

StatusPublished

This text of 570 S.W.3d 202 (Gill Family Props., LLC v. Keith Smith Mech., LLC) 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

Gill Family Props., LLC v. Keith Smith Mech., LLC, 570 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant Gill Family Properties, LLC ("Gill" or "Appellant") appeals judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County entered after bench trial on Appellant's petition claiming unjust enrichment and Respondent's counter-claim petition alleging breach of contract and seeking recovery quantum meruit , awarding $40,928.28 to Respondent Keith Smith Mechanical, LLC ("Smith" or "Respondent"). Gill raises one point on appeal, arguing the trial court erred in considering Exhibit KSM-18 and accompanying testimony in assessing damages, because they exceeded the scope of the pleadings and the prayer for relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for use of the parties setting forth the reasons for the decision.

Finding no error, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).¹

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant Gill Family Properties, LLC ("Gill" or "Appellant") appeals judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County entered after bench trial on Appellant's petition claiming unjust enrichment and Respondent's counter-claim petition alleging breach of contract and seeking recovery quantum meruit , awarding $40,928.28 to Respondent Keith Smith Mechanical, LLC ("Smith" or "Respondent"). Gill raises one point on appeal, arguing the trial court erred in considering Exhibit KSM-18 and accompanying testimony in assessing damages, because they exceeded the scope of the pleadings and the prayer for relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for use of the parties setting forth the reasons for the decision.

Finding no error, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 S.W.3d 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-family-props-llc-v-keith-smith-mech-llc-moctapp-2019.