Dunham v. Dunham

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dunham v. Dunham

386 S.W.3d 911, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1526, 2012 WL 6018033

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 4, 2012·No. No. ED 97998·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark J. Dunham (Husband) appeals from the judgment denying his motion to amend judgment or for new trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Mark J. Dunham (Husband) appeals from the judgment denying his motion to amend judgment or for new trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Dunham v. Dunham, 386 S.W.3d 911, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1526, 2012 WL 6018033 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

386 S.W.3d 911 (Dunham v. Dunham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.