Turley v. Turley

Missouri Court of Appeals

Turley v. Turley

169 S.W.3d 559, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1238, 2005 WL 2007159

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 23, 2005

DocketED 85340

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 S.W.3d 559 (Turley v. Turley) 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

Turley v. Turley, 169 S.W.3d 559, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1238, 2005 WL 2007159 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Edward F. Turley (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his motion to modify spousal maintenance. The marriage of Husband and Eileen M. Turley (‘Wife”) was dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage entered on December 7, 2000 (“Decree”). On appeal, Husband asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify because: (i) Wife failed to obtain gainful employment after three years; and (ii) a decrease in his salary constituted a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the Decree. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the general principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this 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.

Appellant Edward F. Turley (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his motion to modify spousal maintenance. The marriage of Husband and Eileen M. Turley (‘Wife”) was dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage entered on December 7, 2000 (“Decree”). On appeal, Husband asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify because: (i) Wife failed to obtain gainful employment after three years; and (ii) a decrease in his salary constituted a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the Decree. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the general principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.W.3d 559, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1238, 2005 WL 2007159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turley-v-turley-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack