Dowling v. Dowling

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dowling v. Dowling

540 S.W.3d 439

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105227

StatusPublished

This text of 540 S.W.3d 439 (Dowling v. Dowling) 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

Dowling v. Dowling, 540 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*440Edward P. Dowling, Jr. ("Husband") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, denying his motion to modify his maintenance obligation owed to Patricia M. (Brady) Dowling ("Wife"). On appeal, Husband argues a substantial and continuing change in circumstances occurred to support modification of maintenance because Wife increased her monthly retirement savings post-dissolution, the motion court relied on an incorrect computation of Wife's reasonable monthly income and expenses, and the motion court misapplied the law when it determined the prohibition on maintenance being used to accumulate capital did not apply in a modification proceeding. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

PER CURIAM.

*440Edward P. Dowling, Jr. ("Husband") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, denying his motion to modify his maintenance obligation owed to Patricia M. (Brady) Dowling ("Wife"). On appeal, Husband argues a substantial and continuing change in circumstances occurred to support modification of maintenance because Wife increased her monthly retirement savings post-dissolution, the motion court relied on an incorrect computation of Wife's reasonable monthly income and expenses, and the motion court misapplied the law when it determined the prohibition on maintenance being used to accumulate capital did not apply in a modification proceeding. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 S.W.3d 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowling-v-dowling-moctapp-2018.