Brooks v. Brooks

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brooks v. Brooks

473 S.W.3d 209, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1087, 2015 WL 6468193

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 2015

DocketNo. ED 101845

StatusPublished

This text of 473 S.W.3d 209 (Brooks v. Brooks) 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

Brooks v. Brooks, 473 S.W.3d 209, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1087, 2015 WL 6468193 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Sharon Brooks (“Wife”) appeals the judgment entered by the trial court dissolving her marriage to Robert Brooks (“Husband”). Wife claims the trial court erred in: (1) finding the property located [210]*210at 2720 Hallon Street in Idaho was separate and not marital property; and (2) awarding the Ml amount of equity in 2720 Hallon Street to Husband.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Sharon Brooks (“Wife”) appeals the judgment entered by the trial court dissolving her marriage to Robert Brooks (“Husband”). Wife claims the trial court erred in: (1) finding the property located [210]*210at 2720 Hallon Street in Idaho was separate and not marital property; and (2) awarding the Ml amount of equity in 2720 Hallon Street to Husband.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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)

473 S.W.3d 209, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1087, 2015 WL 6468193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-brooks-moctapp-2015.