Case ID: sw3d_99/html/0038-01.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

Karen J. ODUM, Appellant, v. Mary Jane KRAMPER, Respondent.
    No. ED 81592.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Feb. 18, 2003.
    Scott D. Mosier, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Ronald J. Wuebbeling, St. Louis, MO, for respondents.
    Before: MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Karen J. Odum (“Buyer”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mary Jane Kramper (“Seller”). Buyer argues the trial court erred in granting Seller’s motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist and, regardless of whether Buyer had an independent inspection of the property, she was entitled to rely on any disclosures or nondisclosures by Seller. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.160b).