Darrough v. Darrough

Missouri Court of Appeals

Darrough v. Darrough

500 S.W.3d 304, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 876, 2016 WL 4597489

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 6, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103547

StatusPublished

This text of 500 S.W.3d 304 (Darrough v. Darrough) 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

Darrough v. Darrough, 500 S.W.3d 304, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 876, 2016 WL 4597489 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Daniel Darrough (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s judgment that dissolved his marriage to Danielle Darrough (“Wife”), divided their property and debts, and determined the terms of custody of their two children. In a multitude of points and subpoints on appeal, Husband faults much of the trial court’s judgment, asserting that the court erroneously reached numerous conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and against the weight of the evidence, and that the court in several ways abused its discretion. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for them information only, 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

Daniel Darrough (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s judgment that dissolved his marriage to Danielle Darrough (“Wife”), divided their property and debts, and determined the terms of custody of their two children. In a multitude of points and subpoints on appeal, Husband faults much of the trial court’s judgment, asserting that the court erroneously reached numerous conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and against the weight of the evidence, and that the court in several ways abused its discretion. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for them information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 S.W.3d 304, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 876, 2016 WL 4597489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrough-v-darrough-moctapp-2016.