Case Name: KING, KREHBIEL, HELLMICH & BORBONUS, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Carl D. ESSEN, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2010-10-12
Citations: 325 S.W.3d 542
Docket Number: No. ED 94161
Parties: KING, KREHBIEL, HELLMICH & BORBONUS, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Carl D. ESSEN, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIAL. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 325
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
KING, KREHBIEL, HELLMICH & BORBONUS, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Carl D. ESSEN, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 94161.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Oct. 12, 2010.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 17, 2010.
Application for Transfer Denied Dec. 21, 2010.
Jane C. Hogan, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Vincent D. Vogler, James E. Klene, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIAL. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Carl D. Essen (Essen) appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of King, Krehbiel, Hellmich, and Borbonus, LLC (Respondent). Following a bench trial, the trial court found that Respondent was entitled to recover on a contract for an account of $5,475.00 plus interest. We find that substantial evidence supports the trial court's judgment and we affirm the judgment.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Essen is entitled to no relief on appeal. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).