Roethemeyer v. Roethemeyer

Missouri Court of Appeals

Roethemeyer v. Roethemeyer

829 S.W.2d 958, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 891, 1992 WL 114327

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 2, 1992·No. No. 60374·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Husband appeals after the denial of his motion to modify a dissolution decree wherein he had asked that the order to pay maintenance be terminated. We affirm. The trial court did not err and 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 our 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 after the denial of his motion to modify a dissolution decree wherein he had asked that the order to pay maintenance be terminated. We affirm. The trial court did not err and 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 our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Roethemeyer v. Roethemeyer, 829 S.W.2d 958, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 891, 1992 WL 114327 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

829 S.W.2d 958 (Roethemeyer v. Roethemeyer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.