# Lueders v. BROWN DOOR ONE, INC.

> Missouri Court of Appeals · September 22, 2009 · 292 S.W.3d 604

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2171799

## Case

- **Full name:** Kevin LUBBERS, Appellant, v. BROWN DOOR ONE, INC. F/K/A Loopback, Inc. D/B/A Brick Network and Daniel F. O’Sullivan, Jr., Respondents
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 22, 2009
- **Citations:** 292 S.W.3d 604; 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1311; 2009 WL 3050907
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Crane, Ahrens, Baker
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2171799

## Opinion text

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The Appellants, Brown Door 1, Inc., f/k/a Loopback, Inc., d/b/a Brick Network (“Loopback”) and Daniel O’Sullivan (“O’Sullivan”), (collectively “Tenants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment and order of their trial de novo of a lease dispute in favor of Respondent. Tenants raise five points on appeal: 1) the trial court ei’red in awarding judgment for periods outside the scope of the pleadings; 2)' the trial court erred by not dismissing the' case because rent was paid for February and March; 3) the trial court erred by not dismissing the case because the action was not ripe; 4) the trial court erred by expanding the scope of damages to include the period from August 14, 2008 to October 31, 2008; and 5) the trial court erred by assigning personal liability to O’Sullivan because he was not a party, personally, to the lease and he did not guarantee the lease. We find no error and affirm.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2171799. Public record. Not legal advice.