Decker v. Wegener

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decker v. Wegener

298 S.W.3d 104, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1238, 2009 WL 2871113

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 8, 2009

DocketED 92344

StatusPublished

This text of 298 S.W.3d 104 (Decker v. Wegener) 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

Decker v. Wegener, 298 S.W.3d 104, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1238, 2009 WL 2871113 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Judith Decker (Wife) appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her petition alleging fraud by her ex-husband, Michael Wegener (Husband), on the basis of res judicata. Wife asserts three points of error in the trial court’s dismissal of her fraud petition, essentially: (1) that Husband perpetrated a fraud, (2) that her fraud claim is different from her earlier petition to re-open the dissolution case and therefore not barred by res judicata, and (3) that she has a due process right to litigate the fraud claim.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not err in dismissing Wife’s petition. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties 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.

Judith Decker (Wife) appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her petition alleging fraud by her ex-husband, Michael Wegener (Husband), on the basis of res judicata. Wife asserts three points of error in the trial court’s dismissal of her fraud petition, essentially: (1) that Husband perpetrated a fraud, (2) that her fraud claim is different from her earlier petition to re-open the dissolution case and therefore not barred by res judicata, and (3) that she has a due process right to litigate the fraud claim.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not err in dismissing Wife’s petition. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 S.W.3d 104, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1238, 2009 WL 2871113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decker-v-wegener-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack