Case Name: Paul R. SEXAUER and Geralyn P. Sexauer, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Emma A. GEGG, Sole Trustee Under The Emma A. Gegg Living Trust, and Donald J. Flieg, David J. Flieg, Jr., d/b/a Flieg's Garage and Implement Company, a Partnership, Defendants/Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-02-29
Citations: 12 S.W.3d 397
Docket Number: No. ED 75916
Parties: Paul R. SEXAUER and Geralyn P. Sexauer, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Emma A. GEGG, Sole Trustee Under The Emma A. Gegg Living Trust, and Donald J. Flieg, David J. Flieg, Jr., d/b/a Flieg’s Garage and Implement Company, a Partnership, Defendants/Appellants.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and PAUL J. SIMON and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 12
Pages: 397–397

Head Matter:
Paul R. SEXAUER and Geralyn P. Sexauer, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Emma A. GEGG, Sole Trustee Under The Emma A. Gegg Living Trust, and Donald J. Flieg, David J. Flieg, Jr., d/b/a Flieg’s Garage and Implement Company, a Partnership, Defendants/Appellants.
No. ED 75916.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Feb. 29, 2000.
Francis J. Toohey, Jr., Toohey & DiMaggio, P.C., Perryville, for appellant.
Clinton B. Roberts, Tom R. Burchham, III, Sonya D. Day, Roberts, Roberts & Burcham, L.L.C., Farmington, Eric Charles Harris, Mayhugh & Harris, Park Hills, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and PAUL J. SIMON and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendants, Emma A. Gegg, Sole Trustee under the Emma A. Gegg living Trust, Donald J. Flieg, David J. Flieg, and Herbert A. Flieg, Jr., d/b/a Flieg's Garage and Implement Company, a Partnership, appeal from the trial court's judgment establishing a prescriptive easement, an easement by implication, and an easement by necessity, in favor of plaintiffs, Paul R. Sexauer and his wife, Geralyn Sexauer.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. As an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).