Case Name: Amalia HUME, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, and H.F. Booth & Sons Brick Contractor, Defendants/Respondents, and Leroy Walls, II, L.R. Walls Homes, LLC, ATC Company, Inc. a/k/a Assured Title Company, n/k/a Land America Title, Renner Howell Architects, Gerald Scheidegger, Brian Scheidegger, and Charlene Schulte, Defendants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-05-07
Citations: 398 S.W.3d 120
Docket Number: No. ED 98491
Parties: Amalia HUME, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, and H.F. Booth & Sons Brick Contractor, Defendants/Respondents, and Leroy Walls, II, L.R. Walls Homes, LLC, ATC Company, Inc. a/k/a Assured Title Company, n/k/a Land America Title, Renner Howell Architects, Gerald Scheidegger, Brian Scheidegger, and Charlene Schulte, Defendants.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LISA VAN AMBURG, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 398
Pages: 120–121

Head Matter:
Amalia HUME, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, and H.F. Booth & Sons Brick Contractor, Defendants/Respondents, and Leroy Walls, II, L.R. Walls Homes, LLC, ATC Company, Inc. a/k/a Assured Title Company, n/k/a Land America Title, Renner Howell Architects, Gerald Scheidegger, Brian Scheidegger, and Charlene Schulte, Defendants.
No. ED 98491.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
May 7, 2013.
Mitchell D. Johnson, Harold G. Johnson, Johnson & Johnson, St. Ann, MO, for appellant.
Barry L. Haith, Jamie L. Thompson, Lathrop & Gage, Clayton, MO, for respondent 84 Lumber Co.
Richard A. Stockenberg, Stephanie E. Hudson, Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard P.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent H.F. Booth & Sons Brick.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LISA VAN AMBURG, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from judgments entered in defendants' favor in her action based on unjust enrichment and conversion. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).