State of Missouri, ex rel. John Jacob Jost, Doine L. Jost and Propagators Jost, Ltd., Relators/Respondents, v. City of Des Peres Board of Adjustment, Respondent, John R. Barsanti, Nancy Lee Barsanti, Thomas R. Weber, Suzanne Weber, John D. Clark and Susan Clark, Intervenors/Appellants.

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: State of Missouri, ex rel. John Jacob Jost, Doine L. Jost and Propagators Jost, Ltd., Relators/Respondents, v. City of Des Peres Board of Adjustment, Respondent, John R. Barsanti, Nancy Lee Barsanti, Thomas R. Weber, Suzanne Weber, John D. Clark and Susan Clark, Intervenors/Appellants. Case Number: 73253 Handdown Date: 05/19/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Kenneth M. Romines Counsel for Appellant: Donald U. Beimdiek Counsel for Respondent: James A. Borchers and Kevin M. O'Keefe Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. R. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Barsanti, et al. (Barsanti), appeals from judgment entered by the trial court reversing a decision of the Board of Adjustment (Board) of the City of Des Peres (City) in favor of State of Missouri, ex rel. John Jacob Jost, et al. Barsanti was not a party to the action from which he appeals. Nevertheless, on appeal, Barsanti contends the court erred in: (1) denying the post-judgment motion to intervene after the court reversed the decision of the Board; and (2) reversing the Board's affirmation of City's Notice to Abate the expansion of the non-conforming use. Barsanti's third point sets forth the duties of this court in regard to this review. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with 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.