Narrative Opinion Summary
Alice Ruth Wildebrandt (Daughter) appeals the trial court's Amended Judgment favoring Albert R. Hill (Son) following a non-jury trial regarding his petition for damages, accounting, constructive trust, and a temporary restraining order. The appellate review of the parties' briefs and the record concludes that the claims of error lack merit. The trial court's judgment is substantiated by substantial evidence and aligns with the weight of the evidence, with no legal errors identified. An extended opinion is deemed unnecessary for precedential value. The appellate court affirms the judgment in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Additionally, Son's "Motion to Strike [Daughter’s] Brief" and his request for sanctions on appeal are both denied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court conducted a review of the parties' briefs and the record, concluding that the claims of error presented by the Daughter lacked merit.
Reasoning: The appellate review of the parties' briefs and the record concludes that the claims of error lack merit.
Denial of Motion to Strike and Sanctionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court denied the Son's motion to strike the Daughter's brief and his request for sanctions on appeal.
Reasoning: Additionally, Son's 'Motion to Strike [Daughter’s] Brief' and his request for sanctions on appeal are both denied.
Rule 84.16(b) Applicationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court decided to affirm the trial court's judgment without an extended opinion as it found no precedential value in further elaboration.
Reasoning: An extended opinion is deemed unnecessary for precedential value. The appellate court affirms the judgment in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Substantial Evidence Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's judgment was upheld because it was supported by substantial evidence and was consistent with the weight of the evidence presented.
Reasoning: The trial court's judgment is substantiated by substantial evidence and aligns with the weight of the evidence, with no legal errors identified.