Case Name: James COFFEY and Christianamercy Coffey, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Mark KNOFT, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-03-09
Citations: 129 S.W.3d 421
Docket Number: No. ED 83273
Parties: James COFFEY and Christianamercy Coffey, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Mark KNOFT, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 129
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
James COFFEY and Christianamercy Coffey, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Mark KNOFT, Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 83273.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
March 9, 2004.
George J. Miller, The Miller/Salsbury Law Firm, Eureka, MO, for appellants.
William F. James, Wuestling & James, L.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs, James Coffey and Christian-amerey Coffey, appeal from the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant. No error of law appears. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).