Kieffer v. Kieffer

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kieffer v. Kieffer

129 S.W.3d 446, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 375, 2004 WL 503884

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 16, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83443

StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.W.3d 446 (Kieffer v. Kieffer) 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

Kieffer v. Kieffer, 129 S.W.3d 446, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 375, 2004 WL 503884 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Andrew Kieffer (“movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, dismissing his motion pursuant to Rule 74.06(b) to set aside a judgment. In the original proceeding, the trial court enforced a settlement agreement between movant and respondent, Nancy Kieffer (“respondent”). Mov-ant appealed to this court, and we affirmed in Kieffer v. Kieffer, 103 S.W.3d 164 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Movant then filed a motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 74.06(b)(5), arguing that it was no longer equitable to enforce the judgment. The motion court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction.¹

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purposes, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Andrew Kieffer (“movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, dismissing his motion pursuant to Rule 74.06(b) to set aside a judgment. In the original proceeding, the trial court enforced a settlement agreement between movant and respondent, Nancy Kieffer (“respondent”). Mov-ant appealed to this court, and we affirmed in Kieffer v. Kieffer, 103 S.W.3d 164 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Movant then filed a motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 74.06(b)(5), arguing that it was no longer equitable to enforce the judgment. The motion court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction.¹

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purposes, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.W.3d 446, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 375, 2004 WL 503884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kieffer-v-kieffer-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack