Treat v. Treat

Missouri Court of Appeals

Treat v. Treat

46 S.W.3d 664, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1009, 2001 WL 641117

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 12, 2001·No. No. ED 77627·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David W. Treat appeals from a trial court judgment denying his Motion to Modify/Terminate Maintenance. 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, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Hartzell v. Hartzell, 976 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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.

David W. Treat appeals from a trial court judgment denying his Motion to Modify/Terminate Maintenance. 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, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Hartzell v. Hartzell, 976 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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).

Treat v. Treat, 46 S.W.3d 664, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1009, 2001 WL 641117 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

46 S.W.3d 664 (Treat v. Treat) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related