Maune v. Wittenborn

Missouri Court of Appeals

Maune v. Wittenborn

273 S.W.3d 554, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1606, 2008 WL 5474251

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 25, 2008·No. ED 90911·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Preston Wittenborn appeals from the trial court’s judgment, which was based on an earlier default judgment, entered in favor of Jeffrey Maune. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the *555 principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Preston Wittenborn appeals from the trial court’s judgment, which was based on an earlier default judgment, entered in favor of Jeffrey Maune. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the *555 principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Maune v. Wittenborn, 273 S.W.3d 554, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1606, 2008 WL 5474251 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

273 S.W.3d 554 (Maune v. Wittenborn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.