Case Name: Marvin RINEY and Fayetta Riney, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Lawrence KIEFER and Celeste Kiefer, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Charles H. SANDERS and Lois E. Sanders, Third-Party Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-06-02
Citations: 968 S.W.2d 265
Docket Number: No. 72480
Parties: Marvin RINEY and Fayetta Riney, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Lawrence KIEFER and Celeste Kiefer, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Charles H. SANDERS and Lois E. Sanders, Third-Party Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before CRAHAN, C.J., and HOFF and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 968
Pages: 265–266

Head Matter:
Marvin RINEY and Fayetta Riney, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Lawrence KIEFER and Celeste Kiefer, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Charles H. SANDERS and Lois E. Sanders, Third-Party Defendants/Respondents.
No. 72480.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Southern Division.
June 2, 1998.
Lawrence S. Denk, Robert J. Brummond, Sullivan, Brummond & Denk, St. Louis, for appellants.
Albert C. Lowes, David J. Roth II, Lowes & Drusch, Cape Girardeau, Timothy W. In-man, Elpers & Inman, P.C., Ste. Genevieve, for respondents.
Before CRAHAN, C.J., and HOFF and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This appeal involves a dispute over ownership of two tracts of land located in Perry County, Missouri. Defendants Lawrence and Celeste Kiefer appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs Marvin and Fayetta Riney and third-party defendants Charles and Lois Sanders in an action to quiet title and to recover damages for trespass and conversion.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find defendants' claims of error to be without merit. There is sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prec-edential value.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).