Case Name: In the Interest of Juanita TURNER, An Alleged Incapacitated and Disabled Person, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-11-04
Citations: 119 S.W.3d 581
Docket Number: No. ED 81371
Parties: In the Interest of Juanita TURNER, An Alleged Incapacitated and Disabled Person, Respondent.
Judges: Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J, and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 119
Pages: 581–582

Head Matter:
In the Interest of Juanita TURNER, An Alleged Incapacitated and Disabled Person, Respondent.
No. ED 81371.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Nov. 4, 2003.
Melvin L. Raymond, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Leonard J. Frankel, Michael J. Payne, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
James W. Huck, St. Louis, MO, Guardian Ad Litem.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J, and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Janet Shanklin (hereinafter, "Appellant") appeals from the trial court's judgment dismissing her petition seeking guardianship of her mother, Juanita Turner, and from the award of sanctions in favor of Appellant's sister, Corliss Bonner (hereinafter, "Respondent"). Appellant claims the trial court erred in imposing sanctions and attorney fees in that there was insufficient evidence to establish her petition was filed frivolously. Appellant also argues she did nothing to protract this litigation, but rather, the litigation ensued because Respondent sought a restraining order against her.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's imposition of sanctions. Robin Farms, Inc. v. Beeler, 991 S.W.2d 182, 186 (Mo.App. W.D.1999). Respondent's motion to dismiss Appellant's brief for failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is denied. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).