Lueders v. BROWN DOOR ONE, INC.

292 S.W.3d 604, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1311, 2009 WL 3050907

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Appellants, Brown Door 1, Inc., f/k/a Loopback, Inc., d/b/a Brick Network (“Loopback”) and Daniel O’Sullivan (“O’Sullivan”), (collectively “Tenants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment and order of their trial de novo of a lease dispute in favor of Respondent. Tenants raise five points on appeal: 1) the trial court ei’red in awarding judgment for periods outside the scope of the pleadings; 2)' the trial court erred by not dismissing the' case because rent was paid for February and March; 3) the trial court erred by not dismissing the case because the action was not ripe; 4) the trial court erred by expanding the scope of damages to include the period from August 14, 2008 to October 31, 2008; and 5) the trial court erred by assigning personal liability to O’Sullivan because he was not a party, personally, to the lease and he did not guarantee the lease. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).