Case Name: Somsanit THONGKHAM, Plaintiff, Transouth Financial Corporation, Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. BOYD'S HAPPY CAMPERS, INC., d/b/a Boyd's Auto SALES, Defendant, Better Than New Automobiles, LLC, d/b/a Better Than New Automobiles, Appellant/Third-Party Defendant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-06-29
Citations: 229 S.W.3d 614
Docket Number: No. WD 66932
Parties: Somsanit THONGKHAM, Plaintiff, Transouth Financial Corporation, Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. BOYD’S HAPPY CAMPERS, INC., d/b/a Boyd’s Auto SALES, Defendant, Better Than New Automobiles, LLC, d/b/a Better Than New Automobiles, Appellant/Third-Party Defendant.
Judges: Before JAMES M. SMART, JR., Presiding Judge, JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge and LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 229
Pages: 614–614

Head Matter:
Somsanit THONGKHAM, Plaintiff, Transouth Financial Corporation, Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. BOYD’S HAPPY CAMPERS, INC., d/b/a Boyd’s Auto SALES, Defendant, Better Than New Automobiles, LLC, d/b/a Better Than New Automobiles, Appellant/Third-Party Defendant.
No. WD 66932.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
June 29, 2007.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 2007.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Vernon E. Scoville, Judge.
Luke A. Demaree, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Robert A. Hammeke, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
Before JAMES M. SMART, JR., Presiding Judge, JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge and LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Better Than New Automobiles, LLC, appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to set aside a default judgment entered against it in favor of Respondent Transouth Financial Corporation. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, that no error of law appears, and that the court did not abuse its discretion. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion. However, a memorandum of the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.
Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).