Pinkston v. Perren
Pinkston v. Perren
Opinion
ORDER
Martha Perren and Judy A. Woodham (hereinafter and collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment declaring easements in favor of Paul Eugene Pinkston, Jones-Farmington Properties, LLC, and Rose Lane Investments, LLC across Appellants’ property and ordering Appellants to remove a structure that im *370 pedes access to the easement. Appellants raise three points on appeal. First, Appellants argue the trial court’s judgment is against the weight of the evidence. Second, Appellants claim Count IV of the declaratory judgment action constituted a misjoinder of claims. Third, Appellants aver the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law violated Rule 73.01.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the transcript, and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. The motion taken with the case is denied. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.