ANGELA KOELLER and ) JEFF HASKENHOFF, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) v. ) No. SD36129 ) Filed: May 22, 2020 MALIBU SHORES CONDOMINIUM ) ASSOCIATION, INC., ) ) Defendant-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMDEN COUNTY Honorable Aaron G. Koeppen, Associate Circuit Judge
AFFIRMED Angela Koeller and Jeff Hask enhoff appeal from the tria l court’s judgment in favor of Malibu Shores Condominium Association, Inc. (Condo Association). Randall Koeller was originally a plaintiff in this case. He di ed during the pendency of the action. His wife, Angela Koeller, was substituted as a party plaintiff. To avoid confusion, we refer to Randall Koeller, Angela Koeller and Jeff Hasken hoff individually by their first names. We refer to Angela and Jeff collectively as Plai ntiffs. Presenting thre e points, Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by deciding that the Condo Association’s lien on their unit was2 valid and that Plaintiffs were barred from recovery pursuant to the voluntary payment doctrine. Finding no merit in Plain tiffs’ contentions, we affirm. Factual and Procedural Background This appeal involves a lien placed on Unit 3, Building 15 of the Malibu Shores Condominium (the Unit) in favor of the Condo Association. Before Randall and Jeff purchased the Unit, Michael and Wendy Halliday (the Hallidays) were the owners. The Hallidays also leased boat slip number 11 on dock C (the boat slip) from the Condo Association. Monthly maintenance fees for the Unit and the boat slip were billed by the Condo Association as unit assessments and doc k assessments on the statements provided to the Hallidays. The Hallidays became delinquent in the payment of their unit and dock assessment fees and charges. The Condo Association sued the Hallidays for past-due assessments and sought forfeiture of the boat s lip pursuant to the te rms of the lease agreement. In March 2016, the Condo Association obtained a judgment against the Hallidays in the amount of $6,156.46 for assessments, late-payment penalties a nd interest. Pursuant to the judgment, the lease for the boat slip was terminated, and the Condo Association took possession of the boat slip. The judgme nt stated that it cons tituted a lien on the Unit. 1 At the time this judgment was obtained, Angela and Jeff were members of the Condo Association Board. In May 2016, Randall and Jeff purchased the Unit at a sheriff’s sale for $52,000. Randall and Jeff knew they were not purchasing the boat slip.

1 Additionally, paragraph 23 of the Condomi nium Declaration states that, if any owner fails or refuses to make a payment of the common expenses when due, the amount thereof shall constitute a lien on the interest of such owner.3 In June 2016, Randall and Jeff asked th e Condo Association about the amount of the lien on the Unit. The Condo Association informed Randall and Jeff that they owed $8,154 for the lien. This amount reflected unp aid assessments against the Unit, finance charges, late fees, lien charges and atto rney fees. The amount also included dock assessment fees for May and June 2016. Wh ile Randall questioned the amount, Jeff insisted that the entire amount was correct and owed by them. In July 2016, Randall and Jeff separately and voluntarily wrote checks in the amount of $4,077 to satisfy the lien. At that time, Angela and Jeff were still members of the Condo Association Board. In November 2016, Randall and Jeff sold the Unit. Before selling the Unit, they obtained a “Release of All Liens” on the Unit fr om the Condo Association. They sold the Unit free of any liens or other en cumbrances and made a profit. Randall and Jeff later filed suit ag ainst the Condo Association for, inter alia , negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misr epresentation with resp ect to the validity and amount of the lien. After a bench trial, the court entered judgm ent in favor of the Condo Association and against Randall and Jeff. One of the factual findings by the trial court stated that the “lien asserted against [the Unit] was satisfied after receipt of the voluntary payment” by Randall and Jeff. Anot her factual finding was that Randall and Jeff “offered no credible evidence as to any material misrepresentations made by any of the Board Members of [the Condo Associati on].” The trial court concluded, inter alia , that “the lien against [the Unit] was valid and ow ed by [Randall and Jeff] after they purchased [the Unit], but even if it were not, [Randall and Jeff’s] claims still fail because of the voluntary payment rule.” This appeal followed.4 Standard of Review In this court-tried case, our review is governed by Rule 84.13(d) and Murphy v.
Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). 2 We are required to affirm the trial court’s judgment unless it is not supported by substantia l evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy , 536 S.W.2d at 32. “We review issues of law de novo. ” Denny v. Regions Bank , 527 S.W.3d 92 0, 925 (Mo. App. 2017). With respect to factual determinations, we defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations and assessment of the weight of witness testimony. Metzger v. Franklin , 496 S.W.3d 547, 549 (Mo. App. 2016). “The trial cour t is free to believe all, none, or part of the testimony of any witness.” Id

. Discussion and Decision Points 1 and 2 In Points 1 and 2, Plaintiffs argue that the trial court misapplied the law by finding that the lien was valid and by including dock assessment and attorney fees in the amount of the lien. Those arguments are meritless because the trial court correctly applied the voluntary payment doctrine. The voluntary payment doctrine “provide s that a person who voluntarily pays
money with full knowledge of all the facts in the case, and in the absence of fraud and duress, cannot recover it back, even though the payment is made without sufficient consideration and under protest.” Damon v. City of Kansas City , 419 S.W.3d 162, 192 (Mo. App. 2013). In Huch v. Charter Communications, Inc. , 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2009), our Supreme Court stated:

2 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2020).5 When evaluating the rationale behind this rule of law, courts emphasize that a person who, induced thereto solely by a mistake of law , has conferred a benefit upon another to satisfy in whol e or in part an honest claim of the other to the performance gi ven, is not entitled to re stitution. The underlying reason for those requirements is that it would be inequitable to give such person the privilege of selecting his own time and conveni ence for litigation short of the bar of the statute of limitations, and thereby subject the payee to the uncertainties and casualties of hu man affairs likely to affect his means of defending the claim.
Id . at 726 (internal quotations and cita tions omitted; emphasis added). None of the arguments advanced by Plain tiffs in Points 1 and 2 involve fraud or duress. Instead, the arguments are directed solely at the validity of th e lien and its amount. These involve only a mistake of law by Randa ll and Jeff in voluntarily paying a sum they now claim they did not owe. A mistake of law occurs when a pers on is truly acquainted with the existence or nonexist ence of facts, but is ignorant of, or comes to an erroneous conclusion as to, their legal effect. Edwards v. City of Ellisville , 426 S.W.3d 644, 666 (Mo. App. 2013). As members of the Condo A ssociation Board, Angela and Jeff were fully aware of all material fact s giving rise to the assessment of the lien. Their alleged mistake of law falls within the voluntary pa yment doctrine and precl udes their attempt to recover funds they voluntarily paid to the Condo Association. Theref ore, Points 1 and 2 are denied.
Point 3 In Point 3, Plaintiffs argue the trial c ourt’s finding that the Condo Association did not misrepresent the lien amount is “not s upported by substantial evid ence, is against the weight of the evidence and misapplies the law. ” Because this point does not comply with Rule 84.04(d), it preserves not hing for appellate review.6 Point 3 presents three different legal chal lenges to the judgment. A point relied on should contain only one issue, so multiple cont entions about different issues should not be combined into a single point. See City of Joplin v. Wallace Bajjali Dev. Partners, L.P. , 522 S.W.3d 327, 330 (Mo. App. 2017) . The reason is each challenge involves a distinct analysis. A not-supported-by-subs tantial-evidence and an against-the-wei ght analysis are distinctly different. Smith v. Great Am. Assur. Co. , 436 S.W.3d 700, 703-04 (Mo. App. 2014). Each of these, in turn, is different from a claim that the trial court erroneously declared or applied the law. Id . “[T]his means each Murphy ground is proved differently from the others and is subject to different principles a nd procedures of appellate review.”
Id . at 704. A point that includes multiple issues is multifarious and preserves nothing for appellate review. State ex rel. Schmitt v. Schier Co., Inc. , 594 S.W.3d 245, 253 n.15 (Mo. App. 2020). Additionally, Plaintiffs’ contention th at the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence fails because they had the burden of production and persuasion on their claim. When the burden of proof is placed on a party for a claim that is denied , the trier of fact has the right to believe or disbelieve that party’s uncontradicted or uncontroverted evidence. If the trie r of fact does not believe the evidence of the party bearing the burden, it pr operly can find for the other party. Generally, the party not having the bur den of proof on an issue need not offer any evidence concerning it. C onsequently, substantial evidence supporting a judgment against the party with the burden of proof is not required or necessary. Adoption of K.M.W. , 516 S.W.3d 375, 382 (Mo. App. 2017) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiffs’ contention that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence is governed by Houston v. Crider , 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. 2010):7 [A]n against-the-weight-of-the-evid ence challenge requires completion of four sequential steps: (1) identify a challenged factual pr oposition, the existe nce of which is necessary to sustain the judgment; (2) identify all of the favorable ev idence in the record supporting the existence of that proposition; (3) identify the evidence in the reco rd contrary to the belief of that proposition, resolving all conflicts in testimony in accordance with the trial court’s credibility determinations, whether explicit or implicit; and, (4) demonstrate why the favorable evidence, along with the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, is so lacking in probative value, when considered in the context of the totality of the evidence, that it fails to induce belief in that proposition.
Id . at 187. Plaintiffs have not followed these mandatory requirements because they have not identified the favorable ev idence supporting the trial cour t’s finding or acknowledged the trial court’s decisions about the credibility of the evidence presente d. Instead, Plaintiffs have only cited the evid ence favorable to their position. “Failure to follow the applicable framework means the appellant’s argument is analytically useless and provides no support for his or her challenge.” In re Marriage of Adams , 414 S.W.3d 29, 34 (Mo. App. 2013). For all of these reasons , Point 3 is denied. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

JEFFREY W. BATES, C.J. – OPINION AUTHOR DON E. BURRELL, J. – CONCUR MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. – CONCUR