Case Name: Richard and Barbara BARNETT, et al., Respondents, v. Steve and Cindy DUNCAN, Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2011-02-15
Citations: 331 S.W.3d 360
Docket Number: No. ED 94781
Parties: Richard and Barbara BARNETT, et al., Respondents, v. Steve and Cindy DUNCAN, Appellants.
Judges: Before: GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 331
Pages: 360–361

Head Matter:
Richard and Barbara BARNETT, et al., Respondents, v. Steve and Cindy DUNCAN, Appellants.
No. ED 94781.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Feb. 15, 2011.
Frederick H. Schwetye, Union, MO, for appellant.
Justin E. Head, Union, MO, for respondent.
Before: GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Steve and Cindy Duncan, who appeared at trial pro se, appeal from the trial court's grant of the consolidated petitions for ejectment filed by Richard and Barbara Barnett and Orville and Rosalee Garland against the Duncans. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude that the trial court's finding is supported by substantial evidence. Murphy v. Canon, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for them use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2010).