Albin v. Albin

Missouri Court of Appeals

Albin v. Albin

157 S.W.3d 348, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 302, 2005 WL 406307

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2005

DocketED 84283

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.W.3d 348 (Albin v. Albin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albin v. Albin, 157 S.W.3d 348, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 302, 2005 WL 406307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Albin (Husband) appeals from a decree of dissolution of his marriage to Diane Albin (Wife). Husband contends the trial court erred in finding only $5,000.00 of marital funds expended on Wife’s separate property located at 442 Bush Drive where he presented evidence that $98,197.61 of marital funds was expended in improvements to the property.

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. However, 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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Albin (Husband) appeals from a decree of dissolution of his marriage to Diane Albin (Wife). Husband contends the trial court erred in finding only $5,000.00 of marital funds expended on Wife’s separate property located at 442 Bush Drive where he presented evidence that $98,197.61 of marital funds was expended in improvements to the property.

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. However, 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 348, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 302, 2005 WL 406307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albin-v-albin-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack