Hewgley v. Hewgley

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hewgley v. Hewgley

353 S.W.3d 680, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1563, 2011 WL 5864314

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

DocketED 95456

StatusPublished

This text of 353 S.W.3d 680 (Hewgley v. Hewgley) 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

Hewgley v. Hewgley, 353 S.W.3d 680, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1563, 2011 WL 5864314 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronda Hewgley (Wife) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County granting Nelson Hew-gle/s (Husband) Motion to Modify maintenance. Wife claims that the court erred in reducing her maintenance because Husband failed to prove that a substantial and continuing change in circumstances rendered the prior award unreasonable.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Ronda Hewgley (Wife) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County granting Nelson Hew-gle/s (Husband) Motion to Modify maintenance. Wife claims that the court erred in reducing her maintenance because Husband failed to prove that a substantial and continuing change in circumstances rendered the prior award unreasonable.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 S.W.3d 680, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1563, 2011 WL 5864314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewgley-v-hewgley-moctapp-2011.