Bricker v. Bricker

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bricker v. Bricker

481 S.W.3d 890, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 123, 2016 WL 615792

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102784

StatusPublished

This text of 481 S.W.3d 890 (Bricker v. Bricker) 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

Bricker v. Bricker, 481 S.W.3d 890, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 123, 2016 WL 615792 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[891]*891 ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Bricker (Husband) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dissolving his marriage to Brooke Bricker (Wife) and awarding Wife sole legal and physical custody of the children. Husband argues that the trial court erred by 1) failing to grant Husband unsupervised visitation, 2) ordering Husband to pay fifty percent of the children’s private schooling costs, and 3) dividing Husband’s pension through the- Fireman’s Retirement System of St. Louis. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record' on appeal and have determined that' an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[891]*891 ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Bricker (Husband) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dissolving his marriage to Brooke Bricker (Wife) and awarding Wife sole legal and physical custody of the children. Husband argues that the trial court erred by 1) failing to grant Husband unsupervised visitation, 2) ordering Husband to pay fifty percent of the children’s private schooling costs, and 3) dividing Husband’s pension through the- Fireman’s Retirement System of St. Louis. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record' on appeal and have determined that' an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 S.W.3d 890, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 123, 2016 WL 615792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bricker-v-bricker-moctapp-2016.