REHNQUIST DESIGN & BUILD INC. v. Weltmer

327 S.W.3d 4, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1411, 2010 WL 4075440
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 19, 2010
DocketED 93444
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 327 S.W.3d 4 (REHNQUIST DESIGN & BUILD INC. v. Weltmer) 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
REHNQUIST DESIGN & BUILD INC. v. Weltmer, 327 S.W.3d 4, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1411, 2010 WL 4075440 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph and Peggy Weltmer (hereinafter and collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Rehnquist Design & Build, Inc. (hereinafter, “Contractor”) on their claim for breach of contract and against Robert Rehnquist on their claim for Missouri Merchandising Practices Act violations. Appellants raise four points on appeal. First, Appellants argue the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment in Contractor’s favor on its second amended counterclaim for restitution. Second, Appellants argue the trial court erred in denying their motion for directed verdict, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and motion for new trial in that Appellants claim they did not materially breach the contract because the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract. Third, Appellants claim the trial court erred in denying their motion for new trial on their breach of contract claim against Contractor because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Finally, Appellants argue the trial court abused its discretion in awarding them only $6,000 in attorneys’ fees.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
327 S.W.3d 4, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1411, 2010 WL 4075440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rehnquist-design-build-inc-v-weltmer-moctapp-2010.