Sandroff v. Sandroff

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sandroff v. Sandroff

291 S.W.3d 857, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1253, 2009 WL 2870408

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 8, 2009

DocketED 92103

StatusPublished

This text of 291 S.W.3d 857 (Sandroff v. Sandroff) 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

Sandroff v. Sandroff, 291 S.W.3d 857, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1253, 2009 WL 2870408 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nancy E. Sandroff (Mother), appeals from the trial court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment granting, in part, Earl A. Sandroffs, First Amended Motion to Modify Family Court Judgment and denying Mother’s Motion to Declare Emancipation and Cross Motion to Modify. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Zalmanoff v. Zalmanoff, 862 S.W.2d 941, 944 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nancy E. Sandroff (Mother), appeals from the trial court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment granting, in part, Earl A. Sandroffs, First Amended Motion to Modify Family Court Judgment and denying Mother’s Motion to Declare Emancipation and Cross Motion to Modify. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Zalmanoff v. Zalmanoff, 862 S.W.2d 941, 944 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 S.W.3d 857, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1253, 2009 WL 2870408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandroff-v-sandroff-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack