Case Name: Steven BROOKSHER, Appellant, v. Rick HEITTMAN, Trustee of Josephine Brooksher Revocable Trust, Star Hope Baptist Church, First Baptist Church, St. Paul United Church of Christ, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-06-08
Citations: 136 S.W.3d 537
Docket Number: No. ED 82661
Parties: Steven BROOKSHER, Appellant, v. Rick HEITTMAN, Trustee of Josephine Brooksher Revocable Trust, Star Hope Baptist Church, First Baptist Church, St. Paul United Church of Christ, Respondents.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, C.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 136
Pages: 537–537

Head Matter:
Steven BROOKSHER, Appellant, v. Rick HEITTMAN, Trustee of Josephine Brooksher Revocable Trust, Star Hope Baptist Church, First Baptist Church, St. Paul United Church of Christ, Respondents.
No. ED 82661.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.
June 8, 2004.
Douglas R. Smith, O’Fallon, MO, for Appellant.
James D. Beck, Troy, MO, Bobette Shipman, Elsberry, MO, John M. Mcllroy, Jr., Bowling Green, MO, for Respondent.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, C.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Steven Brooksher (hereinafter, "Appellant"), as personal representative, opened the estate of Joseph Brooksher, his father, on April 26, 2002. On July 2, 2002, Appellant filed a petition for discovery of assets against the trustee of the Josephine Brooksher Revocable Living Trust (hereinafter, "the Trust") and three churches (hereinafter, and collectively, "Respondent") named therein. Respondent filed a motion for declaratory judgment. The trial court issued its judgment finding a latent ambiguity in the Trust document and ordering the Trust's trustee to distribute the balance of the Trust estate to Respondent. Appellant brings this appeal. •
The judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).