Johnson v. Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. Johnson

91 S.W.3d 154, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2349, 2002 WL 31747247

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Johnson v. Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1292 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 10, 2002·No. No. WD 60464·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Edward Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to modify maintenance. On appeal, he claims that he presented sufficient evidence of changed circumstances necessitating modification. This court finds that there was insufficient evidence of substantial and continuing changed circumstances making the prior order of maintenance unreasonable. Since a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the trial court denying Mr. Johnson’s motion to modify is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Edward Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to modify maintenance. On appeal, he claims that he presented sufficient evidence of changed circumstances necessitating modification. This court finds that there was insufficient evidence of substantial and continuing changed circumstances making the prior order of maintenance unreasonable. Since a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the trial court denying Mr. Johnson’s motion to modify is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Johnson v. Johnson, 91 S.W.3d 154, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2349, 2002 WL 31747247 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

91 S.W.3d 154 (Johnson v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.