KING, KREHBIEL, HELLMICH & BORBONUS, LLC v. ESSEN, 325 S.W.3d 542 (2010)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco110303000412
Visitors: 24
Filed: Dec. 21, 2010
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2010
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Carl D. Essen (Essen) appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of King, Krehbiel, Hellmich, and Borbonus, LLC (Respondent). Following a bench trial, the trial court found that Respondent was entitled to recover on a contract for an account of $5,475.00 plus interest. We find that substantial evidence supports the trial court's judgment and we affirm the judgment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Essen is entitled to no
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Carl D. Essen (Essen) appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of King, Krehbiel, Hellmich, and Borbonus, LLC (Respondent). Following a bench trial, the trial court found that Respondent was entitled to recover on a contract for an account of $5,475.00 plus interest. We find that substantial evidence supports the trial court's judgment and we affirm the judgment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Essen is entitled to no r..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Carl D. Essen (Essen) appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of King, Krehbiel, Hellmich, and Borbonus, LLC (Respondent). Following a bench trial, the trial court found that Respondent was entitled to recover on a contract for an account of $5,475.00 plus interest. We find that substantial evidence supports the trial court's judgment and we affirm the judgment.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Essen is entitled to no relief on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Source: Leagle
