Cross v. Cross

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cross v. Cross

374 S.W.3d 401, 2012 WL 3666844, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1026

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 28, 2012·No. No. ED 97115·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gary Cross (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his Motion for Contempt alleging his former spouse, Tanya Cross, failed to comply with the terms of their dissolution decree. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Husband’s motion. Jones v. Jones, 296 S.W.3d 526, 527-28 (Mo.App. W.D.2009). 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 their 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.

Gary Cross (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his Motion for Contempt alleging his former spouse, Tanya Cross, failed to comply with the terms of their dissolution decree. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Husband’s motion. Jones v. Jones, 296 S.W.3d 526, 527-28 (Mo.App. W.D.2009). 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 their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cross v. Cross, 374 S.W.3d 401, 2012 WL 3666844, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1026 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

374 S.W.3d 401 (Cross v. Cross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related