Long v. Long

Missouri Court of Appeals

Long v. Long

928 S.W.2d 371, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1376, 1996 WL 444911

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 6, 1996

DocketNo. 67877

StatusPublished

This text of 928 S.W.2d 371 (Long v. Long) 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

Long v. Long, 928 S.W.2d 371, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1376, 1996 WL 444911 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution action, husband, Terrence Long, appeals the trial court’s division of marital property, award of maintenance to wife, Maiy Ellen Long, and award of attorney’s fees to wife’s attorney pursuant to its decree of dissolution entered November 8, 1994. The trial court’s decree is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and constitutes a proper declaration and application of the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The court’s division of marital property, award of maintenance and award of attorney’s fees was not an abuse of discretion. Mills v. Mills, 663 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. App.1983).

A written opinion would have no prece-dential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information explaining the 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

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution action, husband, Terrence Long, appeals the trial court’s division of marital property, award of maintenance to wife, Maiy Ellen Long, and award of attorney’s fees to wife’s attorney pursuant to its decree of dissolution entered November 8, 1994. The trial court’s decree is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and constitutes a proper declaration and application of the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The court’s division of marital property, award of maintenance and award of attorney’s fees was not an abuse of discretion. Mills v. Mills, 663 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. App.1983).

A written opinion would have no prece-dential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information explaining the 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)

928 S.W.2d 371, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1376, 1996 WL 444911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-long-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack