Rice v. Rice

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rice v. Rice

111 S.W.3d 421, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 498, 2003 WL 1825419

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 2003

DocketNo. ED 80921

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.W.3d 421 (Rice v. Rice) 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

Rice v. Rice, 111 S.W.3d 421, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 498, 2003 WL 1825419 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Earl Rice (hereinafter, “Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment of dissolution from Tina Rice (hereinafter, ‘Wife”). Husband brings several points on appeal challenging the division and valuation of marital and separate property and the awarding of child custody to Wife. Wife filed a motion to dismiss Husband’s appeal for failure to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in Rule 84.04 which was taken with the case.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the trial court committed no error. [422]*422Sanders v. Sanders, 933 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Wife’s motion taken with the case is denied. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Earl Rice (hereinafter, “Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment of dissolution from Tina Rice (hereinafter, ‘Wife”). Husband brings several points on appeal challenging the division and valuation of marital and separate property and the awarding of child custody to Wife. Wife filed a motion to dismiss Husband’s appeal for failure to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in Rule 84.04 which was taken with the case.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the trial court committed no error. [422]*422Sanders v. Sanders, 933 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Wife’s motion taken with the case is denied. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.W.3d 421, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 498, 2003 WL 1825419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-rice-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack