Case Name: Rhonda K. RUBENACKER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. James BREWER, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-11-25
Citations: 121 S.W.3d 269
Docket Number: No. ED 82092
Parties: Rhonda K. RUBENACKER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. James BREWER, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 121
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
Rhonda K. RUBENACKER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. James BREWER, Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 82092.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Nov. 25, 2003.
Timothy W. Inman, Elpers & Inman, P.C., Ste. Genevieve, MO, for Appellant.
Thomas L. Hoeh, Perryville, MO, for Respondent.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Rhonda Rubenacker (Rubenacker) appeals from the motion court's judgment dismissing her claims of unjust enrichment and right to replevin against James Brewer (Brewer). 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 would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).