In re Marriage of Yeager

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re Marriage of Yeager

612 S.W.2d 383, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2941

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 30, 1980·No. No. 42285·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SNYDER, Judge.

The former husband appeals from the judgment in this court-tried dissolution case, challenging only the trial court’s division of marital property. Respondent wife has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

It would serve no purpose to relate the unpleasant facts preceding the breakup of [384] this marriage of more than 20 years duration. Appellant asserts the trial court erred only in awarding to respondent a poultry business which the parties had carried on for a number of years. A study of the transcript requires this court to conclude that the judgment was supported by sub-, stantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32[1-3] (Mo. banc 1976); Rule 73.01.

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value and the judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

CRIST, P. J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

SNYDER, Judge.

The former husband appeals from the judgment in this court-tried dissolution case, challenging only the trial court’s division of marital property. Respondent wife has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

It would serve no purpose to relate the unpleasant facts preceding the breakup of [384] this marriage of more than 20 years duration. Appellant asserts the trial court erred only in awarding to respondent a poultry business which the parties had carried on for a number of years. A study of the transcript requires this court to conclude that the judgment was supported by sub-, stantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32[1-3] (Mo. banc 1976); Rule 73.01.

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value and the judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

CRIST, P. J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

In re Marriage of Yeager, 612 S.W.2d 383, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2941 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

612 S.W.2d 383 (In re Marriage of Yeager) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related