Case Name: Micah MUDD, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Amber BARTON, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-11-17
Citations: 476 S.W.3d 308
Docket Number: No. ED 102679
Parties: Micah MUDD, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Amber BARTON, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Roy L. Richter, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 476
Pages: 308–308

Head Matter:
Micah MUDD, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Amber BARTON, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 102679
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
FILED: November 17, 2015
James W. Schottel, Jr. 906 Olive Street, Suite PH St. Louis, MO 63101 Schottel & Associates, P.C., for Appellant.
Pamela Palmer Patton 9300 Dielman Industrial Drive, Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63132 David Jay Weimer, Co-Counsel 1125 Grand Blvd., Suite 600 Kansas City, MO 64106, Kramer & Frank, for Respondent.
Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Roy L. Richter, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Amber Barton (Defendant) appeals from the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to set aside and vacate a judgment entered against her on September 16, 2010. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).