Hethcote v. Hethcote

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hethcote v. Hethcote

245 S.W.3d 917, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 239

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 19, 2008·No. No. ED 89739·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Former wife appeals from a judgment of the trial court modifying maintenance. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 82 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opin[918]*918ion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

Former wife appeals from a judgment of the trial court modifying maintenance. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 82 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opin[918]*918ion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Hethcote v. Hethcote, 245 S.W.3d 917, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

245 S.W.3d 917 (Hethcote v. Hethcote) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related