Ottermann v. Ottermann

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ottermann v. Ottermann

862 S.W.2d 348, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 1993 WL 286817

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 3, 1993·No. No. 62964·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Husband appeals from that portion of the dissolution decree which divided his pension plan and annuity plan equally between the parties. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming 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.

Husband appeals from that portion of the dissolution decree which divided his pension plan and annuity plan equally between the parties. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Ottermann v. Ottermann, 862 S.W.2d 348, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 1993 WL 286817 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

862 S.W.2d 348 (Ottermann v. Ottermann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.