Sultana v. Shariff

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sultana v. Shariff

275 S.W.3d 390, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 76, 2009 WL 241722

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 3, 2009

DocketED 91011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 S.W.3d 390 (Sultana v. Shariff) 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

Sultana v. Shariff, 275 S.W.3d 390, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 76, 2009 WL 241722 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Amjad Shariff (hereinafter, “Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Firdose Sultana (hereinafter, “Wife”). Husband raises four points on appeal, challenging the trial court’s imputation of income, the Wife’s award of maintenance, the calculation of child support, and the Wife’s award of attorneys’ fees.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Amjad Shariff (hereinafter, “Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Firdose Sultana (hereinafter, “Wife”). Husband raises four points on appeal, challenging the trial court’s imputation of income, the Wife’s award of maintenance, the calculation of child support, and the Wife’s award of attorneys’ fees.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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)

275 S.W.3d 390, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 76, 2009 WL 241722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sultana-v-shariff-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack