Flanigan v. Flanigan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Flanigan v. Flanigan

356 S.W.3d 339, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1539, 2011 WL 5553720

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 15, 2011

DocketED 95283

StatusPublished

This text of 356 S.W.3d 339 (Flanigan v. Flanigan) 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

Flanigan v. Flanigan, 356 S.W.3d 339, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1539, 2011 WL 5553720 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David W. Flanigan appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Vicki A. Flanigan (Wife). He challenges the trial court’s order awarding to Wife $2,000 per month for modifiable maintenance. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the maintenance award. Atchley v. Atchley, 334 S.W.3d 709, 712 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2011).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David W. Flanigan appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Vicki A. Flanigan (Wife). He challenges the trial court’s order awarding to Wife $2,000 per month for modifiable maintenance. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the maintenance award. Atchley v. Atchley, 334 S.W.3d 709, 712 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2011).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 S.W.3d 339, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1539, 2011 WL 5553720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flanigan-v-flanigan-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack