Case Name: Pamela CUNNINGHAM, Respondent, v. Felix CLARKE, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2009-09-15
Citations: 292 S.W.3d 587
Docket Number: No. ED 91763
Parties: Pamela CUNNINGHAM, Respondent, v. Felix CLARKE, Appellant.
Judges: Before KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and ROY L. RICHTER, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 292
Pages: 587–587

Head Matter:
Pamela CUNNINGHAM, Respondent, v. Felix CLARKE, Appellant.
No. ED 91763.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Sept. 15, 2009.
David L. Baylard, Union, MO, for Appellant.
Bradley J. Bakula, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and ROY L. RICHTER, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Pamela Cunningham (hereinafter, "Cunningham") filed an equity suit against Felix Clarke (hereinafter, "Clarke") to either quiet title or partition the property located in Union, Missouri (hereinafter, "the Property") and items of personal property. Clarke counter-claimed, seeking to have the Property and personal property sold at a partition sale. Following a bench trial, judgment was entered, quieting title of the Property in favor of Cunningham and dividing the personal property. Clarke brings this three point appeal, claiming the trial court erred in quieting title of the Property in favor of Cunningham.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).