Osmun v. Osmun

Missouri Court of Appeals

Osmun v. Osmun

125 S.W.3d 326, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1738, 2003 WL 22479473

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 4, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81547

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 S.W.3d 326 (Osmun v. Osmun) 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

Osmun v. Osmun, 125 S.W.3d 326, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1738, 2003 WL 22479473 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas M. Osmun (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. On appeal, Husband argues the trial court erred in: (1) characterizing Husband’s dental practice as marital property; (2) failing to properly account for Husband’s debt in its valuation of his dental practice; (3) finding that the house and nine-acre parcel in Robertsville were marital property; (4) valuing the house in Robertsville, along with the surrounding acreage, at $875,000; (5) characterizing Husband’s contribution to the Xe-lan Foundation as marital property; and (6) characterizing certain debts of Wife as marital debts.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, a memorandum has been provided to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm 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.

Thomas M. Osmun (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. On appeal, Husband argues the trial court erred in: (1) characterizing Husband’s dental practice as marital property; (2) failing to properly account for Husband’s debt in its valuation of his dental practice; (3) finding that the house and nine-acre parcel in Robertsville were marital property; (4) valuing the house in Robertsville, along with the surrounding acreage, at $875,000; (5) characterizing Husband’s contribution to the Xe-lan Foundation as marital property; and (6) characterizing certain debts of Wife as marital debts.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, a memorandum has been provided to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.W.3d 326, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1738, 2003 WL 22479473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osmun-v-osmun-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack