Case Name: Christopher WIMMER, Appellant, v. MARIANIST PROVINCE OF the UNITED STATES, a Non-Profit Corporation, Father Martin Solma, Provincial of the Marianist Province of the United States, and Chaminade College Preparatory, Inc., a Non-Profit Corporation, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-02-21
Citations: 519 S.W.3d 443
Docket Number: No. ED 104526
Parties: Christopher WIMMER, Appellant, v. MARIANIST PROVINCE OF the UNITED STATES, a Non-Profit Corporation, Father Martin Solma, Provincial of the Marianist Province of the United States, and Chaminade College Preparatory, Inc., a Non-Profit Corporation, Respondents.
Judges: Before James M. Dowd, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 519
Pages: 443–443

Head Matter:
Christopher WIMMER, Appellant, v. MARIANIST PROVINCE OF the UNITED STATES, a Non-Profit Corporation, Father Martin Solma, Provincial of the Marianist Province of the United States, and Chaminade College Preparatory, Inc., a Non-Profit Corporation, Respondents.
No. ED 104526
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: February 21, 2016
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 10, 2017
Application for Transfer Denied June 27, 2017
Nicole E. Gorovsky Kenneth, Michael Chackes, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellant.
Gerard Thomas Noce, Justin Assouad, Alexander Haar, St. Louis, Missouri, for Respondents.
Before James M. Dowd, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
In 2015, Christopher Wimmer ("Appellant") filed a two-count petition against Marianist Province of the United States ("Marianist"), Father Martin Solma, and Chaminade College Preparatory, Inc. ("Chaminade") (collectively "Respondents") arising out of the sexual abuse committed against him. by two deceased Marianist Brothers when he was a student at Chaminade's middle school and high school in the 1970s. Count one alleged the intentional failure to supervise clergy and count two alleged the intentional infliction of emotional distress against all Respondents. The trial court dismissed Appellant's petition as barred by the statute of limitations because it found that his claims accrued when he turned twenty-one and thus ran five years after that date. Finding that no error of law appears, we affirm.
An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).