Case ID: sw3d_398/html/0120-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amalia HUME, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, and H.F. Booth & Sons Brick Contractor, Defendants/Respondents, and Leroy Walls, II, L.R. Walls Homes, LLC, ATC Company, Inc. a/k/a Assured Title Company, n/k/a Land America Title, Renner Howell Architects, Gerald Scheidegger, Brian Scheidegger, and Charlene Schulte, Defendants.
    No. ED 98491.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    May 7, 2013.
    
      Mitchell D. Johnson, Harold G. Johnson, Johnson & Johnson, St. Ann, MO, for appellant.
    Barry L. Haith, Jamie L. Thompson, Lathrop & Gage, Clayton, MO, for respondent 84 Lumber Co.
    Richard A. Stockenberg, Stephanie E. Hudson, Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard P.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent H.F. Booth & Sons Brick.
    Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LISA VAN AMBURG, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from judgments entered in defendants’ favor in her action based on unjust enrichment and conversion. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).