Kister v. Moculeski

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kister v. Moculeski

333 S.W.3d 528, 2011 WL 796757

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 8, 2011·No. ED 93690·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Karen C. Moculeski (Wife) appeals from the judgment dissolving her marriage to George H. Kister (Husband) and that divided the parties’ mai'ital and separate property and apportioned their debts. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Karen C. Moculeski (Wife) appeals from the judgment dissolving her marriage to George H. Kister (Husband) and that divided the parties’ mai'ital and separate property and apportioned their debts. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Kister v. Moculeski, 333 S.W.3d 528, 2011 WL 796757 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

333 S.W.3d 528 (Kister v. Moculeski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related