Kunstel v. Kunstel

Supreme Court of Missouri

Kunstel v. Kunstel

958 S.W.2d 561, 1998 Mo. LEXIS 5, 1998 WL 32519

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedJanuary 27, 1998

DocketNo. 80223

StatusPublished

This text of 958 S.W.2d 561 (Kunstel v. Kunstel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kunstel v. Kunstel, 958 S.W.2d 561, 1998 Mo. LEXIS 5, 1998 WL 32519 (Mo. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The parties’ marriage was dissolved, and the court entered a judgment and decree on July 21, 1995. Subsequently, a motion for contempt was filed. At a hearing held on March 14, 1996, within one year of entry of the judgment, called on the motion for contempt, the parties sought to reopen the judgment to correct alleged errors in the judgment filed. The parties filed a stipulation on March 25, 1996. A new judgment was filed on April 11,1996.

Finding the proceedings at the hearing on March 14, 1996, and the consequent stipulation filed by the parties on March 25,1996, to constitute a motion under Rule 74.06, the judgment is affirmed.

This Court finding no error of law in this case and determining that an opinion would have no precedential value, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed by this memorandum decision. Rule 8). 16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

The parties’ marriage was dissolved, and the court entered a judgment and decree on July 21, 1995. Subsequently, a motion for contempt was filed. At a hearing held on March 14, 1996, within one year of entry of the judgment, called on the motion for contempt, the parties sought to reopen the judgment to correct alleged errors in the judgment filed. The parties filed a stipulation on March 25, 1996. A new judgment was filed on April 11,1996.

Finding the proceedings at the hearing on March 14, 1996, and the consequent stipulation filed by the parties on March 25,1996, to constitute a motion under Rule 74.06, the judgment is affirmed.

This Court finding no error of law in this case and determining that an opinion would have no precedential value, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed by this memorandum decision. Rule 8). 16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

958 S.W.2d 561, 1998 Mo. LEXIS 5, 1998 WL 32519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunstel-v-kunstel-mo-1998.