Case Name: James HELENTHAL Individually and as President of Tri-State Shopper, Inc., and his wife, Jeni Helenthal, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. Charles POLK and Cheryl Polk, Respondents/Cross-Appellants, and Lathrop & Gage, L.C., Intervenor/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-09-11
Citations: 242 S.W.3d 369
Docket Number: No. ED 88115
Parties: James HELENTHAL Individually and as President of Tri-State Shopper, Inc., and his wife, Jeni Helenthal, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. Charles POLK and Cheryl Polk, Respondents/Cross-Appellants, and Lathrop & Gage, L.C., Intervenor/Respondent.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY and NANNETTE A. BAKER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 242
Pages: 369–369

Head Matter:
James HELENTHAL Individually and as President of Tri-State Shopper, Inc., and his wife, Jeni Helenthal, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. Charles POLK and Cheryl Polk, Respondents/Cross-Appellants, and Lathrop & Gage, L.C., Intervenor/Respondent.
No. ED 88115.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Sept. 11, 2007.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 18, 2007.
Application for Transfer Denied Jan. 22, 2008.
James E. Hullverson, Jr., Clayton, MO, for appellants.
Jeffrey K. Suess, Heather J. Hayes, St. Louis, MO, for respondents.
Paul E. Kovacs, Jay A. Summerville, St. Louis, MO, for intervenor.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY and NANNETTE A. BAKER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The Helenthals appeal from the trial court's judgment awarding them some, but not all, of their requested relief, following a trial on the issue of damages, held after the trial court entered default judgment against the Polks. The Helenthals also appeal from the trial court's judgment allowing Lathrop & Gage, L.C., to intervene in the Helenthals' action against the Polks. The Polks cross-appeal from the trial court's judgment denying their motion to set aside the default judgment entered against them. The Polks also appeal from the judgment entered against them following the damages trial. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(1) and (5).
. All pending motions are denied.