Pinkston v. Perren

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pinkston v. Perren

342 S.W.3d 369, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 771, 2011 WL 2237465

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2011

DocketED 94915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 S.W.3d 369 (Pinkston v. Perren) 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

Pinkston v. Perren, 342 S.W.3d 369, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 771, 2011 WL 2237465 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Martha Perren and Judy A. Woodham (hereinafter and collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment declaring easements in favor of Paul Eugene Pinkston, Jones-Farmington Properties, LLC, and Rose Lane Investments, LLC across Appellants’ property and ordering Appellants to remove a structure that im *370 pedes access to the easement. Appellants raise three points on appeal. First, Appellants argue the trial court’s judgment is against the weight of the evidence. Second, Appellants claim Count IV of the declaratory judgment action constituted a misjoinder of claims. Third, Appellants aver the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law violated Rule 73.01.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the transcript, and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. The motion taken with the case is denied. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s decision 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.

Martha Perren and Judy A. Woodham (hereinafter and collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment declaring easements in favor of Paul Eugene Pinkston, Jones-Farmington Properties, LLC, and Rose Lane Investments, LLC across Appellants’ property and ordering Appellants to remove a structure that im *370 pedes access to the easement. Appellants raise three points on appeal. First, Appellants argue the trial court’s judgment is against the weight of the evidence. Second, Appellants claim Count IV of the declaratory judgment action constituted a misjoinder of claims. Third, Appellants aver the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law violated Rule 73.01.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the transcript, and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. The motion taken with the case is denied. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 369, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 771, 2011 WL 2237465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkston-v-perren-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack