Case Name: OMR CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Timothy BAUER & Catherine Bauer, Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2008-10-28
Citations: 266 S.W.3d 887
Docket Number: No. ED 90541
Parties: OMR CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Timothy BAUER & Catherine Bauer, Appellants.
Judges: Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 266
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
OMR CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Timothy BAUER & Catherine Bauer, Appellants.
No. ED 90541.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Oct. 28, 2008.
Timothy Bauer, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
Catherine Bauer, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
Emily E. Kahn, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The defendant tenants, Timothy and Catherine Bauer, appeal pro se the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in favor of the plaintiff landlord, OMR Corporation. Because the tenants' claims are not preserved for our review, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.
The trial court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(5).