Case Name: ENTERTAINMENT CRUISE PRODUCTIONS and Michael Lazaroff, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. James SCHMERSAHL and Schmersahl Treloar & Co., P.C., Defendants/Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-02-23
Citations: 488 S.W.3d 682
Docket Number: No. ED 102950
Parties: ENTERTAINMENT CRUISE PRODUCTIONS and Michael Lazaroff, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. James SCHMERSAHL and Schmersahl Treloar & Co., P.C., Defendants/Appellants.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J,
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 488
Pages: 682–683

Head Matter:
ENTERTAINMENT CRUISE PRODUCTIONS and Michael Lazaroff, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. James SCHMERSAHL and Schmersahl Treloar & Co., P.C., Defendants/Appellants.
No. ED 102950
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: February 23, 2016
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 12, 2016
Application for Transfer Denied May 24, 2016
Charles S. Kramer, Joseph- D. Schneider, Riezman & Berger, 7700 Bonhomme Avenue, 7th Floor, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, for Appellant.
Gary A. Growe, Growe Eisen Karlen, 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 325, Clayton, Missouri 63105, for Respondent.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J,

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
James Schmersahl (Appellant) appeals the order and judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County finding in favor of Michael Lazaroff (Respondent). In its judgment, the trial court concluded that the parties' partnership to promote themed leisure cruises was dissolved in July 2012 and' that the parties did not enter into a subsequent enforceable partnership agreement. The trial court also' found that the partnership was equitably dissolved. In five points on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in: 1) finding in favor of Respondent on Appellant's counterclaims; 2) finding that the dissolution of the partnership barred Appellant's counterclaims because .Respondent did not plead such as an affirmative defense; 3) concluding that Appellant "substantially repudiated" the partnership; 4) finding that the partnership was equitably dissolved; and 5) failing to follow the bifurcation order. 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).