No. ED77275Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Opinion Filed: February 28, 2001
[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT.]
Appeal from Missouri Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Honorable Lucy Rauch, Judge.
Husch Eppenberger, LLC; Mark G. Arnold; 100 North Broadway, Suite 1300, St. Louis, MO 63102; Bobroff, Hesse, Lindmark Martone, P.C.; Marvin L. Lindmark, Thomas B. Tobin; 7730 Forsyth, Suite 200; St. Louis, MO 63105, for appellant.
Knight Tomich; Claude C. Knight; Jane E. Tomich; P.O. Box 953; 118 North Main Street; St. Charles, MO 63301, attorney for respondent.
Before Mary K. Hoff, C.J. and James R. Dowd, J. and Robert E. Crist, S.J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Whittaker Construction, Incorporated (Whittaker) appeals from the trial court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment (judgment) entered, after a non-jury trial in this breach of contract action, in favor of A O Development Co. (A O) on both A O’s claim and Whittaker’s counterclaim. On appeal, Whittaker only challenges part of the damages awarded to A O.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Mary K. Hoff, C.J. and James R. Dowd, J. and Robert E. Crist, S.J. concurring.