Mitauer v. HSBC Mortgage Corp.

Full title: Gina Mitauer, and Harlin Mitauer, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. HSBC Mortgage…

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Date published: May 26, 2015

462 S.W.3d 457 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)

Opinion

No. ED 100746

2015-05-26

Gina Mitauer, and Harlin Mitauer, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation, Safeguard Properties LLC, and Rodney Thomas, Defendants/Respondents, and T.O.C.G.C. LLC d/b/a Touch of Class, and Luke Scherrer, Defendants.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, 10SL–CC01193, Honorable Thomas J. Prebil, Judge Andrew Dennis Sandroni, Angela Michelle Redden–Jansen, Co–Counsel, Attorneys for Gina Mitauer & Harlin Mitauer, O'Gorman & Sandroni, 3350 Greenwood Blvd., Suite 240, Maplewood, MO 63143 Christopher Martin Hohn, Thompson Coburn, One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 2500, St. Louis, MO 63101, atty. for HSBC Mortgage Corp.

PER CURIAM

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, 10SL–CC01193, Honorable Thomas J. Prebil, Judge
Andrew Dennis Sandroni, Angela Michelle Redden–Jansen, Co–Counsel, Attorneys for Gina Mitauer & Harlin Mitauer, O'Gorman & Sandroni, 3350 Greenwood Blvd., Suite 240, Maplewood, MO 63143 Christopher Martin Hohn, Thompson Coburn, One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 2500, St. Louis, MO 63101, atty. for HSBC Mortgage Corp.
Richard Prescott Sifton, Jr., Husch & Blackwell LP, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St. Louis, MO 63105, atty. for SafeGuard Properties LLC & Rodney Thomas Luke Scherrer, 33 Oak Bend Lane, St. Peters, MO 63376, Acting Pro Se, T.O.C.G.C., LLC d/b/a Touch of Glass, 14262 Catawba Drive, De Soto, MO 63020, Acting Pro Se

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Gina and Harlin Mitauer (the Mitauers) appeal from the judgment in favor of HSBC Mortgage Corporation, Safeguard Properties LLC, Rodney Thomas, T.O.C.G.C. LLC d/b/a Touch of Class, and Luke Scherrer on the Mitauers' “Second Amended Petition in Negligence, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Promissory Estoppel and for Punitive Damages.” We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).