Dace v. Dace

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dace v. Dace

364 S.W.3d 261, 2012 WL 1242632, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 471

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2012

DocketED 96569

StatusPublished

This text of 364 S.W.3d 261 (Dace v. Dace) 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

Dace v. Dace, 364 S.W.3d 261, 2012 WL 1242632, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 471 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Daron L. Dace (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Cathy S. Dace (“Wife”). Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Wife maintenance in the amount of $958.00 per month and in awarding her attorney fees in the amount of $6,500.00.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, *262 setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Daron L. Dace (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Cathy S. Dace (“Wife”). Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Wife maintenance in the amount of $958.00 per month and in awarding her attorney fees in the amount of $6,500.00.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, *262 setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 S.W.3d 261, 2012 WL 1242632, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dace-v-dace-moctapp-2012.