Johnson v. Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. Johnson

139 S.W.3d 250, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1062, 2004 WL 1660940

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 27, 2004

DocketWD 62765

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.W.3d 250 (Johnson v. Johnson) 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

Johnson v. Johnson, 139 S.W.3d 250, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1062, 2004 WL 1660940 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Alvin Johnson appeals from the Judgment of Dissolution, which ended his twenty-three year marriage to Deborah Johnson. In his sole point on appeal, Mr. Johnson claims that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property. In particular, he claims that he should have received a larger share of the marital home’s equity.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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

Alvin Johnson appeals from the Judgment of Dissolution, which ended his twenty-three year marriage to Deborah Johnson. In his sole point on appeal, Mr. Johnson claims that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property. In particular, he claims that he should have received a larger share of the marital home’s equity.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.W.3d 250, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1062, 2004 WL 1660940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-johnson-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack