Case Name: S.R., by her next friend S.H.R., and S.H.R., individually, Petitioner/Respondent, v. K.M., Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-06-09
Citations: 463 S.W.3d 468
Docket Number: No. ED 102451
Parties: S.R., by her next friend S.H.R., and S.H.R., individually, Petitioner/Respondent, v. K.M., Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 463
Pages: 468–468

Head Matter:
S.R., by her next friend S.H.R., and S.H.R., individually, Petitioner/Respondent, v. K.M., Respondent/Appellant.
No. ED 102451
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: June 9, 2015
Stevan H. Rowe, Acting Pro Se, 210 N. Main, DeSoto, MO 63020, For Petitioner/Respondent.
Laurence D. Mass, 230 S. Bemiston, Suite 1200, St. Louis, MO 63105, For Respondent/Appellant.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
K.M. (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's Judgment Reviving Judgments entered December 19, 2014. We have reviewed Appellant's brief and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carrón, 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 their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
. Respondent did not file a brief.