MANNING-CHISHOLM v. Chisholm

Missouri Court of Appeals

MANNING-CHISHOLM v. Chisholm

340 S.W.3d 213, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 376, 2011 WL 976703

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 2011

DocketWD 71471

StatusPublished

This text of 340 S.W.3d 213 (MANNING-CHISHOLM v. Chisholm) 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

MANNING-CHISHOLM v. Chisholm, 340 S.W.3d 213, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 376, 2011 WL 976703 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*214 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Susan Manning-Chisholm appeals from a judgment dissolving her marriage to Steven Chisholm, which was entered following her failure to appear at the trial of the dissolution action. Manning-Chisholm argues that the trial court erroneously refused to set the judgment aside, and that the court’s custody determination and division of marital property are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

*214 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Susan Manning-Chisholm appeals from a judgment dissolving her marriage to Steven Chisholm, which was entered following her failure to appear at the trial of the dissolution action. Manning-Chisholm argues that the trial court erroneously refused to set the judgment aside, and that the court’s custody determination and division of marital property are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 S.W.3d 213, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 376, 2011 WL 976703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-chisholm-v-chisholm-moctapp-2011.