Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: St. Louis Investment Properties, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Mary E. Rericha and the Mary Elisabeth Rericha Trust, UTA, dtd 10/12/84, Mary E. Rericha and Lawrence J. Rericha, Trustees, Defendants/Respondents.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/st-louis-investment-properties-inc-plaintiffappellant-v-mary-e-rericha-an-13050
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13050
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=St.+Louis+Investment+Properties%2C+Inc.%2C+Plaintiff%2FAppellant%2C+v.+Mary+E.+Rericha+and+the+Mary+Elisabeth+Rericha+Trust%2C+UTA%2C+dtd+10%2F12%2F84%2C+Mary+E.+Rericha+and+Lawrence+J.+Rericha%2C+Trustees%2C+Defendants%2FRespondents.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=20&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 20; evidence: tag: criminal-law)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  St. Louis Investment Properties, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Mary E. Rericha and the Mary Elisabeth 
Rericha Trust, UTA, dtd 10/12/84, Mary E. Rericha and Lawrence J. Rericha, Trustees, Defendants/Respondents.
Case Number:  72749
Handdown Date:  03/24/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Daniel J. O'Toole
Counsel for Appellant:  Mark B. Leadlove
Counsel for Respondent:  Charles M. Shepherd
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER 
St. Louis Investment Properties, Inc. (Lessee) appeals the trial court's judgment granting a motion for summary 
judgment filed by Mary E. Rericha (Rericha) and The Mary Elisabeth Rericha Trust (Lessor).  In its first point, Lessee 
argues the trial court erred in finding a lease was properly forfeited by Lessor.  In its second point, Lessee argues the trial 
court erred in finding Lessee was unjustly enriched. 
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal.  Upon de novo review, we find no genuine 
issue of material fact or error of law.  An extended opinion would have no precedential value.  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). 
Separate Opinion:

None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.