Fogle v. Fogle

196 S.W.3d 673, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1139, 2006 WL 2051381
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 25, 2006·No. No. ED 86635·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

George Fogle (“Husband”), acting pro se, appeals the judgment dissolving his marriage to Vandra Fogle (“Wife”). Husband attempts to asset several points of error; however, his brief substantially fails to comply with the requirements of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04. Wife has not filed a brief. We will attempt to address Husband’s points as we understand them.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

Fogle v. Fogle, 196 S.W.3d 673, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1139, 2006 WL 2051381 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

196 S.W.3d 673 (Fogle v. Fogle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.