Graham v. Graham

Missouri Court of Appeals

Graham v. Graham

283 S.W.3d 825, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 517, 2009 WL 1055105

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 2009

DocketED 91417

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 S.W.3d 825 (Graham v. Graham) 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

Graham v. Graham, 283 S.W.3d 825, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 517, 2009 WL 1055105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John P. Graham (“Husband”) appeals from the denial of his motion to modify his maintenance obligation to Sharon L. Graham (“Wife”) and from the award of attor *826 ney’s fees to Wife. Husband contends the trial court erred in refusing to reduce Husband’s maintenance obligation because its judgment is not based on substantial evidence and is against the weight of the evidence. Husband also argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Wife in the underlying action and on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. Wife’s motion to strike portions of Husband’s appendix that was taken with the case is hereby granted. The judgment 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John P. Graham (“Husband”) appeals from the denial of his motion to modify his maintenance obligation to Sharon L. Graham (“Wife”) and from the award of attor *826 ney’s fees to Wife. Husband contends the trial court erred in refusing to reduce Husband’s maintenance obligation because its judgment is not based on substantial evidence and is against the weight of the evidence. Husband also argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Wife in the underlying action and on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. Wife’s motion to strike portions of Husband’s appendix that was taken with the case is hereby granted. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 S.W.3d 825, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 517, 2009 WL 1055105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-graham-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack