Long v. Long

105 S.W.3d 858, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 754, 2003 WL 21154173
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Long v. Long. Read the opinion of the Court — 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 815
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 20, 2003·No. No. ED 81469·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mary Ellen Long (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s Modification Judgment reducing Terrence R. Long’s (Husband) maintenance obligation.

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. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Holt v. Holt, 633 S.W.2d 171, 173 (Mo.App. E.D.1982). No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Long v. Long, 105 S.W.3d 858, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 754, 2003 WL 21154173 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

105 S.W.3d 858 (Long v. Long) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marriage of Holt v. Holt
633 S.W.2d 171 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)