Gado v. Gado

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gado v. Gado

180 S.W.3d 48, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1865, 2005 WL 3470291

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 86162

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 S.W.3d 48 (Gado v. Gado) 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

Gado v. Gado, 180 S.W.3d 48, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1865, 2005 WL 3470291 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sonja Gado (“Wife”) appeals from judgment of the trial court sustaining Mokhtar Gado’s (“Husband”) motion to dismiss her petition in equity. Sonja claims that the trial court erred in dismissing her petition in equity with prejudice because it relied on an order from January 1982 that was not supported by any evidence. She further argues that the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice her petition in equity because it failed to recognize that the 1980 decree was complete when issued and that the 1982 decree was a nullity because it was not supported by any evidence. We find no error and affirm. 1

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. This court has reviewed Husband’s Motion for Damages against Wife for Frivolous Appeal Filing [sic] taken with the case. The motion is denied.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sonja Gado (“Wife”) appeals from judgment of the trial court sustaining Mokhtar Gado’s (“Husband”) motion to dismiss her petition in equity. Sonja claims that the trial court erred in dismissing her petition in equity with prejudice because it relied on an order from January 1982 that was not supported by any evidence. She further argues that the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice her petition in equity because it failed to recognize that the 1980 decree was complete when issued and that the 1982 decree was a nullity because it was not supported by any evidence. We find no error and affirm. 1

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. This court has reviewed Husband’s Motion for Damages against Wife for Frivolous Appeal Filing [sic] taken with the case. The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W.3d 48, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1865, 2005 WL 3470291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gado-v-gado-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack