Miller v. Miller

Missouri Court of Appeals

Miller v. Miller

180 S.W.3d 46, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1871, 2005 WL 3470284

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 85960

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 S.W.3d 46 (Miller v. Miller) 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

Miller v. Miller, 180 S.W.3d 46, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1871, 2005 WL 3470284 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Miller (“Husband”) appeals from a judgment of dissolution of marriage specifically relating to the division of property. First, he claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for rehearing or in the alternative new trial by not properly designating property as marital and separate before dividing the property. In his second point relied on, Husband argues that the trial court erred in valuing his two life insurance policies consistent with the finding of the family court and not with Husband’s testimony at trial. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Miller (“Husband”) appeals from a judgment of dissolution of marriage specifically relating to the division of property. First, he claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for rehearing or in the alternative new trial by not properly designating property as marital and separate before dividing the property. In his second point relied on, Husband argues that the trial court erred in valuing his two life insurance policies consistent with the finding of the family court and not with Husband’s testimony at trial. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W.3d 46, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1871, 2005 WL 3470284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-miller-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack