Nicks v. Nicks

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nicks v. Nicks

220 S.W.3d 887, 2007 WL 1246234

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 2007

DocketED 87721

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 S.W.3d 887 (Nicks v. Nicks) 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

Nicks v. Nicks, 220 S.W.3d 887, 2007 WL 1246234 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donna J. Nicks (hereinafter, “Wife”) and Ronald V. Nicks (hereinafter, “Husband”) were married on May 21, 1983. During their marriage, three minor and unemanci-pated children were born. The trial court issued its judgment dissolving their marriage on January 23, 2006. Husband brings this appeal, raising issues of valuation of an equitable life estate, valuation of *888 a corporation, child support, and award of Husband’s separate property to Wife.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donna J. Nicks (hereinafter, “Wife”) and Ronald V. Nicks (hereinafter, “Husband”) were married on May 21, 1983. During their marriage, three minor and unemanci-pated children were born. The trial court issued its judgment dissolving their marriage on January 23, 2006. Husband brings this appeal, raising issues of valuation of an equitable life estate, valuation of *888 a corporation, child support, and award of Husband’s separate property to Wife.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 S.W.3d 887, 2007 WL 1246234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicks-v-nicks-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack