CORLESS v. Becker

Missouri Court of Appeals

CORLESS v. Becker

177 S.W.3d 845, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1490, 2005 WL 2649460

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

DocketED 85419

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 177 S.W.3d 845 (CORLESS v. Becker) 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

CORLESS v. Becker, 177 S.W.3d 845, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1490, 2005 WL 2649460 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Becker (“Husband”) appeals from a Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Husband contends that the trial court erred by: (1) holding that the prenuptial agreement he and Trude Corless *846 (“Wife”) entered into prior to marriage applied only to property set forth in the schedules attached to the prenuptial agreement and not to property earned or acquired by the parties during the marriage; and (2) finding that Husband dissipated marital assets in the amount of $28,000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec-edential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Becker (“Husband”) appeals from a Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Husband contends that the trial court erred by: (1) holding that the prenuptial agreement he and Trude Corless *846 (“Wife”) entered into prior to marriage applied only to property set forth in the schedules attached to the prenuptial agreement and not to property earned or acquired by the parties during the marriage; and (2) finding that Husband dissipated marital assets in the amount of $28,000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec-edential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.W.3d 845, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1490, 2005 WL 2649460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corless-v-becker-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack