Barney v. MIKULICH

Missouri Court of Appeals

Barney v. MIKULICH

261 S.W.3d 717, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1164, 2008 WL 4003785

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 2, 2008

DocketWD 68758

StatusPublished

This text of 261 S.W.3d 717 (Barney v. MIKULICH) 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

Barney v. MIKULICH, 261 S.W.3d 717, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1164, 2008 WL 4003785 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*718 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kay Barney appeals from the decree of dissolution entered in her action against Kenneth Mikulich. Barney asserts that the judgment was indefinite and uncertain because the specific values of the property awarded to each party did not add up to the total value of the property each party was to receive. The errors are nothing more than scrivener’s errors and do not render the judgment so indefinite as to be unenforceable. Barney’s other contention that the trial court’s award of retroactive child support was not supported by the evidence is belied by Barney’s own Form 14.

A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

*718 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kay Barney appeals from the decree of dissolution entered in her action against Kenneth Mikulich. Barney asserts that the judgment was indefinite and uncertain because the specific values of the property awarded to each party did not add up to the total value of the property each party was to receive. The errors are nothing more than scrivener’s errors and do not render the judgment so indefinite as to be unenforceable. Barney’s other contention that the trial court’s award of retroactive child support was not supported by the evidence is belied by Barney’s own Form 14.

A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 S.W.3d 717, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1164, 2008 WL 4003785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barney-v-mikulich-moctapp-2008.