Rissell v. Rissell

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rissell v. Rissell

556 S.W.3d 125

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 4, 2018

DocketNo. ED 106199

StatusPublished

This text of 556 S.W.3d 125 (Rissell v. Rissell) 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

Rissell v. Rissell, 556 S.W.3d 125 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Dorothy Rissell appeals the trial court's modification judgment that reduced her former husband Michael Rissell's maintenance. Ms. Rissell contends that the judgment was entered against the weight of the evidence, which she asserts showed that Mr. Rissell failed to demonstrate a substantial and continuing change in circumstances. She also argues that the trial court erred by denying without an evidentiary hearing her motion to reopen the evidence.

We affirm. Because an extended opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting *126forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Dorothy Rissell appeals the trial court's modification judgment that reduced her former husband Michael Rissell's maintenance. Ms. Rissell contends that the judgment was entered against the weight of the evidence, which she asserts showed that Mr. Rissell failed to demonstrate a substantial and continuing change in circumstances. She also argues that the trial court erred by denying without an evidentiary hearing her motion to reopen the evidence.

We affirm. Because an extended opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting *126forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 S.W.3d 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rissell-v-rissell-moctapp-2018.