Case Name: Greg ST. JOHN and Joan St. John, Appellants, v. RIDGETREE TRAILS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Doris Lahay, Brenda Wilson, Don St. Julian, and Dave Jinkerson, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-03-14
Citations: 519 S.W.3d 464
Docket Number: No. ED 104352
Parties: Greg ST. JOHN and Joan St. John, Appellants, v. RIDGETREE TRAILS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Doris Lahay, Brenda Wilson, Don St. Julian, and Dave Jinkerson, Respondents.
Judges: Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 519
Pages: 464–465

Head Matter:
Greg ST. JOHN and Joan St. John, Appellants, v. RIDGETREE TRAILS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Doris Lahay, Brenda Wilson, Don St. Julian, and Dave Jinkerson, Respondents.
No. ED 104352
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
FILED: March 14, 2017
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 27, 2017
Ira Michael Berkowitz, Law Office of Ira M. Berkowitz, St. Louis, MO, for Appellants.
Daniel E. Wilke, James Albert Wilke, Co-Counsel, Wilke & Wilke, P.C., St. Louis, MO, Andrew Michael Lammert, Natalie Christine Bohleber, Co-Counsel, McCarthy, Leonard, Kaemmerer, L.C., Town & Country, MO, for Respondents.
Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Greg St. John and Joan St. John ("Homeowners") appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ridgetree Trails Homeowners Association, Doris Lahay, Brenda Wilson, Don St. Julian, and Dave Jinkerson (collectively "the Association") on Homeowners' First Amended Petition for breach of contract, negligence and trespass, as well as the trial court's grant of the Association's motion to dismiss Homeowners' nuisance claim. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).