Dempsey v. Dempsey

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dempsey v. Dempsey

605 S.W.2d 513, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2660

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 15, 1980

DocketNo. 41211

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 605 S.W.2d 513 (Dempsey v. Dempsey) 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

Dempsey v. Dempsey, 605 S.W.2d 513, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2660 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Kenneth Bernard Dempsey, defendant appeals from a judgment in a dissolution proceeding. Defendant does not complain of the judgment dissolving the marriage nor the finding that it was irretrievably broken. The essence of his complaint is that the trial court did not make a just distribution of the marital assets, and in making such award overly considered appellant’s misconduct.

We have read and carefully considered -the entire record pursuant to Rule 73.01. We find that the trial court pursuant to § 452.330, RSMo 1978, considered appellant’s marital misconduct as only one factor and properly distributed the marital property. We find, therefore, that the trial court’s division of assets was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence and no error of law appears. The division of the assets was equitable and just. Madden v. Madden, 585 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Mo.App.1979).

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value and we, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court. See Dickerson v. Dickerson, 576 S.W.2d 567 (Mo.App.1979). The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.

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

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Kenneth Bernard Dempsey, defendant appeals from a judgment in a dissolution proceeding. Defendant does not complain of the judgment dissolving the marriage nor the finding that it was irretrievably broken. The essence of his complaint is that the trial court did not make a just distribution of the marital assets, and in making such award overly considered appellant’s misconduct.

We have read and carefully considered -the entire record pursuant to Rule 73.01. We find that the trial court pursuant to § 452.330, RSMo 1978, considered appellant’s marital misconduct as only one factor and properly distributed the marital property. We find, therefore, that the trial court’s division of assets was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence and no error of law appears. The division of the assets was equitable and just. Madden v. Madden, 585 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Mo.App.1979).

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value and we, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court. See Dickerson v. Dickerson, 576 S.W.2d 567 (Mo.App.1979). The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 S.W.2d 513, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dempsey-v-dempsey-moctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack