Case Name: Kenneth MECUM, et al., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. TIEVOLI PARTNERSHIP, LTD., et al., Defendants/Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-11-14
Citations: 35 S.W.3d 456
Docket Number: No. ED 76945
Parties: Kenneth MECUM, et al., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. TIEVOLI PARTNERSHIP, LTD., et al., Defendants/Appellants.
Judges: Before SULLIVAN, P.J., RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J., and MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 35
Pages: 456–457

Head Matter:
Kenneth MECUM, et al., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. TIEVOLI PARTNERSHIP, LTD., et al., Defendants/Appellants.
No. ED 76945.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.
Nov. 14, 2000.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 9, 2001.
Application for Transfer Denied Feb. 13, 2001.
Ross Harry Briggs St. Louis, MO, for appellants.
Charles E. Rendlen III, Law office of Rendlen, Rendlen & Bastían, Hannibal, MO, for respondents.
Before SULLIVAN, P.J., RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J., and MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Tievoli Partnership, Ltd., et al., (Appellants) appeal from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding that Appellants had fraudulently induced Kenneth Mecum, et al., (Respondents) to enter into an agreement to purchase an interest in a certain resort property. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's determination is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).