Wagner v. Wagner

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wagner v. Wagner

491 S.W.3d 635, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 269, 2016 WL 1105896

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 2016

DocketWD 78738

StatusPublished

This text of 491 S.W.3d 635 (Wagner v. Wagner) 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

Wagner v. Wagner, 491 S.W.3d 635, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 269, 2016 WL 1105896 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Carol Wagner (“Wife”) appeals the judgment of the trial court confirming the arbitrator’s award determining what constituted a “deficiency” related to the sale of the parties’ marital home and ordering that the parties be equally liable for it, pursuant to the Second Amended Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (“Dissolution Judgment”). Wife argues that the arbitration award “exceeded the authority and jurisdiction of the arbitrator” because it was “contrary to the provisions of the [Dissolution Judgment] and beyond the power of the arbitrator to award.” Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Carol Wagner (“Wife”) appeals the judgment of the trial court confirming the arbitrator’s award determining what constituted a “deficiency” related to the sale of the parties’ marital home and ordering that the parties be equally liable for it, pursuant to the Second Amended Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (“Dissolution Judgment”). Wife argues that the arbitration award “exceeded the authority and jurisdiction of the arbitrator” because it was “contrary to the provisions of the [Dissolution Judgment] and beyond the power of the arbitrator to award.” Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 S.W.3d 635, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 269, 2016 WL 1105896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-v-wagner-moctapp-2016.