Case Name: Robert P. WILLENBRINK and Rose Willenbrink, Appellants, v. Bill OVERSCHMIDT, Franklin County Assessor and Linda Emmons, Franklin County Collector, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-06-10
Citations: 110 S.W.3d 841
Docket Number: No. ED 80757
Parties: Robert P. WILLENBRINK and Rose Willenbrink, Appellants, v. Bill OVERSCHMIDT, Franklin County Assessor and Linda Emmons, Franklin County Collector, Respondents.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, C.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, J., AND SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 110
Pages: 841–842

Head Matter:
Robert P. WILLENBRINK and Rose Willenbrink, Appellants, v. Bill OVERSCHMIDT, Franklin County Assessor and Linda Emmons, Franklin County Collector, Respondents.
No. ED 80757.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
June 10, 2003.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 24, 2003.
Robert P. Willenbrink, Augusta, pro se.
Joseph W. Purschke, Vincent, Hoven & Purschke Law Firm, Union, for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, C.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, J., AND SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Robert P. Willenbrink and Rose Willen-brink (Appellants) appeal from three separate judgments: (1) an Order dismissing Count III of Appellants' petition alleging class action, in favor of Bill Overschmidt, Franklin County Assessor (Assessor), and Linda Emmons, Franklin County Collector (Collector) (collectively "Franklin County"), (2) an Order granting Summary Judgment to Franklin County on Count II of Appellants' Petition for Repayment of Taxes Filed Under Protest, and (3) a Judgment pertaining to Count I of Appellants' petition and affirming the decision of the State Tax Commission. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgments of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence, are not against the weight of the evidence, and do not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carrón, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We also find that Franklin County was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count II of Appellants' petition. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).