Case Name: Deborah ANSELMO, et al., Respondent, v. Josephine and Andrew GUASTO, Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-02-08
Citations: 162 S.W.3d 63
Docket Number: No. ED 84297
Parties: Deborah ANSELMO, et al., Respondent, v. Josephine and Andrew GUASTO, Appellants.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., GLENN A. NORTON, J„ and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 162
Pages: 63–63

Head Matter:
Deborah ANSELMO, et al., Respondent, v. Josephine and Andrew GUASTO, Appellants.
No. ED 84297.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Feb. 8, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 11, 2005.
Application for Transfer Denied May 31, 2005.
Thomas Cicardi DeVoto, Robert Leo DeVoto, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Gary M. Siegel, Kirk C. Stange, Clayton, MO, Christopher W. Jensen, Union, MO, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., GLENN A. NORTON, J„ and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellants Josephine and Andrew Guas-to (collectively "Guastos") appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County divesting and foreclosing them of any and all rights, title, and interest to five real properties; and declaring Respondent Deborah Anselmo ("Deborah") to be the title owner of said properties. Guastos also appeal from a judgment finding them jointly and severally liable for Civil Conspiracy and liable for attorney fees and costs incurred. In addition, Guastos allege that the trial court erred in entering judgment for Deborah in that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the cause, and that the trial court's jurisdiction was precluded by the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court. Lastly, Guastos allege that the trial court erred in entering judgment for Deborah in that the pleadings fail to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. We find no error and affirm.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Ruie 84.16(b).