Skaggs v. Skaggs

Missouri Court of Appeals

Skaggs v. Skaggs

279 S.W.3d 219, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1500, 2009 WL 791499

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

DocketED 91112

StatusPublished

This text of 279 S.W.3d 219 (Skaggs v. Skaggs) 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

Skaggs v. Skaggs, 279 S.W.3d 219, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1500, 2009 WL 791499 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

*220 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth R. Skaggs Jr. (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s denial of Husband’s Motion for Declaration of Judgment or in the Alternative to Set Judgment Aside more than thirty days following the trial court’s entry of judgment of dissolution of the marriage of Husband and Denise R. Skaggs.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the 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

*220 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth R. Skaggs Jr. (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s denial of Husband’s Motion for Declaration of Judgment or in the Alternative to Set Judgment Aside more than thirty days following the trial court’s entry of judgment of dissolution of the marriage of Husband and Denise R. Skaggs.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 S.W.3d 219, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1500, 2009 WL 791499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skaggs-v-skaggs-moctapp-2009.