Case Name: Dorothy M. BUDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.A. BUDER, III, Theodore Buder, Marshall Buder, Defendants-Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-10-20
Citations: 980 S.W.2d 128
Docket Number: No. 73480
Parties: Dorothy M. BUDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.A. BUDER, III, Theodore Buder, Marshall Buder, Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J. and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 980
Pages: 128–128

Head Matter:
Dorothy M. BUDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.A. BUDER, III, Theodore Buder, Marshall Buder, Defendants-Respondents.
No. 73480.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Oct. 20, 1998.
Thompson Coburn, Mike W. Bartolacei, Charles Baron, Loma Frahm, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly & Davis, John R. Barsanti, Jr., Clark H. Cole, Patrick J. Kenny, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J. and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Dorothy M. Buder (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment dismissing with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted Count I of Appellant's Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Accounting. In this lawsuit, Appellant seeks a declaration that she may now withdraw her 1956 renunciation of a contingent interest in her grandfather's estate.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed 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).