Case Name: CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, Respondent, v. Margaret M. JENKS, Trustee of the Margaret M. Jenks Trust U/A Dated September 29, 1982, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-12-15
Citations: 486 S.W.3d 383
Docket Number: No. ED 102659
Parties: CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, Respondent, v. Margaret M. JENKS, Trustee of the Margaret M. Jenks Trust U/A Dated September 29, 1982, Appellant.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 486
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, Respondent, v. Margaret M. JENKS, Trustee of the Margaret M. Jenks Trust U/A Dated September 29, 1982, Appellant.
No. ED 102659
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: December 15, 2015
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied by Supreme Court January 25, 2016
Application for Transfer Denied May 3, 2016
Jeffery T. McPherson, James E. Mello and Matthew J. Reh, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, for Appellant.
Robert J. Guinness, Guinness & Bueh-ler, P.C., 50 Hill Pointe Court, Suite 200, St. Charles, Missouri 63301, for Respondent.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Margaret Jenks (Appellant) appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to § 523.256 RSMo (2006). In a single point on appeal, Appellant argues that the general rule of civil procedure for voluntary dismissal, Rule 67.02, does not apply to condemnation proceedings. In the alternative, Appellant argues that voluntary dismissal does not divest the trial court of jurisdic tion over a motion filed pursuant to § 523.256 because the statute mandates a determination of whether the condemning authorities engaged in good faith negotiations. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that 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).