Blaisdell v. Blaisdell

Missouri Court of Appeals

Blaisdell v. Blaisdell

294 S.W.3d 140, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1486, 2009 WL 3260003

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 13, 2009

DocketED 91942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 S.W.3d 140 (Blaisdell v. Blaisdell) 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

Blaisdell v. Blaisdell, 294 S.W.3d 140, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1486, 2009 WL 3260003 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Blaisdell appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his Motion to Modify the Modified Decree of Dissolution (Motion to Modify) seeking to terminate his maintenance and life insurance obligations to Deborah Blaisdell. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Haynes v. Almuttar, 25 S.W.3d 667, 671 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for them use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Blaisdell appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his Motion to Modify the Modified Decree of Dissolution (Motion to Modify) seeking to terminate his maintenance and life insurance obligations to Deborah Blaisdell. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Haynes v. Almuttar, 25 S.W.3d 667, 671 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for them use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 S.W.3d 140, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1486, 2009 WL 3260003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blaisdell-v-blaisdell-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack