Gregor v. Gregor

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gregor v. Gregor

141 S.W.3d 467, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1184, 2004 WL 1878208

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 24, 2004·No. No. ED 83196·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth W. Gregor (“Husband”) appeals from the judgment of dissolution dissolving his marriage to Diane Gregor (“Wife”). He alleges the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Wife maintenance of $400 per month and in ordering the division of his Ameren UE pension pursuant to the “wait-and-see” formula of Lynch v. Lynch, 665 S.W.2d 20 (Mo.App.1983).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error and affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum [468] for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed 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.

Kenneth W. Gregor (“Husband”) appeals from the judgment of dissolution dissolving his marriage to Diane Gregor (“Wife”). He alleges the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Wife maintenance of $400 per month and in ordering the division of his Ameren UE pension pursuant to the “wait-and-see” formula of Lynch v. Lynch, 665 S.W.2d 20 (Mo.App.1983).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error and affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum [468] for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Gregor v. Gregor, 141 S.W.3d 467, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1184, 2004 WL 1878208 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

141 S.W.3d 467 (Gregor v. Gregor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related