Deal v. Deal

Missouri Court of Appeals

Deal v. Deal

267 S.W.3d 811, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1580, 2008 WL 4709847

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 28, 2008

DocketED 90616

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 S.W.3d 811 (Deal v. Deal) 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

Deal v. Deal, 267 S.W.3d 811, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1580, 2008 WL 4709847 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul Allen Deal (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Marianna Rowe Deal (‘Wife”). Husband argues the trial court erred in awarding Husband maintenance in the amount of $2,546.00 per month, in ordering Husband to pay $595.81 per *812 month in child support, and in failing to award Husband attorney’s fees.

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 reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul Allen Deal (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Marianna Rowe Deal (‘Wife”). Husband argues the trial court erred in awarding Husband maintenance in the amount of $2,546.00 per month, in ordering Husband to pay $595.81 per *812 month in child support, and in failing to award Husband attorney’s fees.

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 reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 S.W.3d 811, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1580, 2008 WL 4709847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deal-v-deal-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack