RAW v. Entwistle

Missouri Court of Appeals

RAW v. Entwistle

195 S.W.3d 11, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 941, 2006 WL 1736209

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 27, 2006

DocketED 86290

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 195 S.W.3d 11 (RAW v. Entwistle) 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

RAW v. Entwistle, 195 S.W.3d 11, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 941, 2006 WL 1736209 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Raw (“Husband”) appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dissolving his marriage to Carol Entwistle (“Wife”). Husband contends that the trial court erred in entering judgment because an oral settlement agreement announced at trial was not sufficiently “spread upon the record” and because the judgment addressed issues that were not agreed to in the oral settlement.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. 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 judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI