Splitt v. Splitt

Missouri Court of Appeals

Splitt v. Splitt

320 S.W.3d 208, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1179, 2010 WL 3477860

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 7, 2010

DocketED 93642

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 320 S.W.3d 208 (Splitt v. Splitt) 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

Splitt v. Splitt, 320 S.W.3d 208, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1179, 2010 WL 3477860 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Loan Splitt appeals from the trial court’s Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (judgment) dissolving her marriage to Kenneth Splitt. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgment is not against the weight of the evidence, Walsh v. Walsh, 184 S.W.3d 156, 157 (Mo.App. E.D.2006), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in identifying and dividing the parties’ marital property. Pruitt v. Pruitt, 94 S.W.3d 429, 433-34 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). 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.

Loan Splitt appeals from the trial court’s Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (judgment) dissolving her marriage to Kenneth Splitt. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgment is not against the weight of the evidence, Walsh v. Walsh, 184 S.W.3d 156, 157 (Mo.App. E.D.2006), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in identifying and dividing the parties’ marital property. Pruitt v. Pruitt, 94 S.W.3d 429, 433-34 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). 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)

320 S.W.3d 208, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1179, 2010 WL 3477860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/splitt-v-splitt-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack