Provance v. Sauer

Missouri Court of Appeals

Provance v. Sauer

127 S.W.3d 705, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 691, 2004 WL 291220

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 10, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82569

StatusPublished

This text of 127 S.W.3d 705 (Provance v. Sauer) 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

Provance v. Sauer, 127 S.W.3d 705, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 691, 2004 WL 291220 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dorothy Joan Sauer n/k/a Dorothy Joan Provance (“Wife”) appeals from a Family Court Modification and Judgment entered by the Circuit' Court of St. Louis County. [706]*706Wife contends that the motion court erred in: (1) reducing the amount of Husband’s maintenance obligation; (2) failing to increase Husband’s maintenance obligation; and (3) awarding an insufficient amount of attorney’s fees to Wife.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgement is supported by substantial and competent evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Redlinger v. Redlinger, 111 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the award 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.

Dorothy Joan Sauer n/k/a Dorothy Joan Provance (“Wife”) appeals from a Family Court Modification and Judgment entered by the Circuit' Court of St. Louis County. [706]*706Wife contends that the motion court erred in: (1) reducing the amount of Husband’s maintenance obligation; (2) failing to increase Husband’s maintenance obligation; and (3) awarding an insufficient amount of attorney’s fees to Wife.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgement is supported by substantial and competent evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Redlinger v. Redlinger, 111 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.W.3d 705, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 691, 2004 WL 291220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/provance-v-sauer-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack