Duncan v. Duncan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Duncan v. Duncan

550 S.W.2d 623, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2060

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 1977

DocketNo. 38173

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 550 S.W.2d 623 (Duncan v. Duncan) 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

Duncan v. Duncan, 550 S.W.2d 623, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2060 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

McMILLIAN, Presiding Judge.

The husband instituted this action to obtain a dissolution of the parties’ marriage and a division of certain real and personal property. Purported service was by publication pursuant to Rule 54.17, V.A.M.R. The wife did not appear and a default judgment dissolving the marriage and dividing the property was entered. Subsequently, the wife filed a “motion to quash judgment and for modification of judgment” on the grounds of deficiencies in the published notice. The trial court overruled the motion and the wife appealed.

At oral argument, counsel for both parties accepted the fact of the dissolution of the marriage. Counsel further agreed that the failure of the published notice to include a “description of any property to be affected” as required by Rule 54.17(c)(3), V.A.M.R., invalidated those portions of the trial court’s order dividing the property. We concur. See Driscoll v. Konze, 296 S.W.2d 31, 33 (Mo.1956). As properly requested by counsel, therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order as it relates to the division of property and remand the cause for further proceedings to effect the division of property.

STEWART and REINHARD, JJ„ concur.

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

McMILLIAN, Presiding Judge.

The husband instituted this action to obtain a dissolution of the parties’ marriage and a division of certain real and personal property. Purported service was by publication pursuant to Rule 54.17, V.A.M.R. The wife did not appear and a default judgment dissolving the marriage and dividing the property was entered. Subsequently, the wife filed a “motion to quash judgment and for modification of judgment” on the grounds of deficiencies in the published notice. The trial court overruled the motion and the wife appealed.

At oral argument, counsel for both parties accepted the fact of the dissolution of the marriage. Counsel further agreed that the failure of the published notice to include a “description of any property to be affected” as required by Rule 54.17(c)(3), V.A.M.R., invalidated those portions of the trial court’s order dividing the property. We concur. See Driscoll v. Konze, 296 S.W.2d 31, 33 (Mo.1956). As properly requested by counsel, therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order as it relates to the division of property and remand the cause for further proceedings to effect the division of property.

STEWART and REINHARD, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 S.W.2d 623, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-duncan-moctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack