Vaporean v. Vaporean

Missouri Court of Appeals

Vaporean v. Vaporean

524 S.W.3d 150, 2017 WL 2332736, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 512

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 30, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104758

StatusPublished

This text of 524 S.W.3d 150 (Vaporean v. Vaporean) 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

Vaporean v. Vaporean, 524 S.W.3d 150, 2017 WL 2332736, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 512 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

George Vaporean (“Husband”) appeals from the judgment entered in the,dissolution -.action filed by Gloria Vaporean (“Wife”). Husband claims the trial court erred in (1) characterizing all of Husband’s pension as marital property and dividing it before setting aside the nonmarital portion, (2) finding, that neither party offered evidence of the value of the nonmarital portion of the pension, (3) valuing the pension based on Wife’s expert’s testimony, (4) denying Husband’s request for maintenance and (5) denying Husband’s request for attorney fees.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Husband’s claims of error to be without merit, and we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). ‘

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

George Vaporean (“Husband”) appeals from the judgment entered in the,dissolution -.action filed by Gloria Vaporean (“Wife”). Husband claims the trial court erred in (1) characterizing all of Husband’s pension as marital property and dividing it before setting aside the nonmarital portion, (2) finding, that neither party offered evidence of the value of the nonmarital portion of the pension, (3) valuing the pension based on Wife’s expert’s testimony, (4) denying Husband’s request for maintenance and (5) denying Husband’s request for attorney fees.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Husband’s claims of error to be without merit, and we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). ‘

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 S.W.3d 150, 2017 WL 2332736, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaporean-v-vaporean-moctapp-2017.