Stoner v. Stoner

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stoner v. Stoner

443 S.W.3d 47, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1044, 2014 WL 4702449

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 23, 2014·No. No. ED 100279·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Todd Stoner (Husband) appeals the judgment denying his motion to modify the amount of monthly maintenance he pays to Tonia Stoner (Wife). Husband claims the trial court misapplied the law and abused its discretion by not reducing or terminating Wife’s maintenance because Wife is able to meet her reasonable needs without Husband’s contributions. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm 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.

Todd Stoner (Husband) appeals the judgment denying his motion to modify the amount of monthly maintenance he pays to Tonia Stoner (Wife). Husband claims the trial court misapplied the law and abused its discretion by not reducing or terminating Wife’s maintenance because Wife is able to meet her reasonable needs without Husband’s contributions. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Stoner v. Stoner, 443 S.W.3d 47, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1044, 2014 WL 4702449 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

443 S.W.3d 47 (Stoner v. Stoner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.