Case ID: sw3d_530/html/0631-01.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

The METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Robert W. SEEHAUSEN a/k/a Robert Warren Seehausen, Defendant/Appellant, and Marjorie D. Seehausen a/k/a Marjorie Dawn Seehausen, Defendant.
    No. ED 105092
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
    Filed: October 17, 2017
    Randall E. Gusdorf, 9666 Olive Blvd., Suite 211, St. Louis, MO 63132, For Plaintiff/Respondent.,
    Robert W. Seehausen, Acting Pro Se, 1159 Summit Meadows Drive, Fenton, MO 63026, For Defendani/Appellant.
    , -Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert W. Seehausen a/k/a Robert Warren Seehausen (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s September 29, 2016 joint and several judgment entered against him and judgment in default as to his co-defendant wife, Marjorie D. Seehausen a/k/a Marjorie Dawn Seehausen, and in favor of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (Respondent) in the amount of $1,190.77 principal and $178.62 attorney’s fees, aggregating to $1,369.39; plus costs of court and $120.00 special process server fees. We have-reviewed Appellant’s brief and the record oh appeal and conclude the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Arcese v. Daniel Schmitt & Company, 504 S.W.3d 772, 777 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to-the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri 'Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b). 
      
      . Respondent did not file a brief.