Williams v. Williams

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. Williams

48 S.W.3d 51, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 716, 2001 WL 435430

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 2001

DocketNo. ED 77702

StatusPublished

This text of 48 S.W.3d 51 (Williams v. Williams) 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

Williams v. Williams, 48 S.W.3d 51, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 716, 2001 WL 435430 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Williams (Appellant) appeals from the judgment entered by the trial [52]*52court awarding marital property to Ellen Ann Williams (Respondent), awarding Appellant an interest of $6,845.39 in the property, ordering Appellant to pay $1,000.00 in attorney’s fees to Respondent’s counsel, and awarding Appellant’s counsel $1,000.00 for services rendered that benefited both parties. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s judgment is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Gerald Williams (Appellant) appeals from the judgment entered by the trial [52]*52court awarding marital property to Ellen Ann Williams (Respondent), awarding Appellant an interest of $6,845.39 in the property, ordering Appellant to pay $1,000.00 in attorney’s fees to Respondent’s counsel, and awarding Appellant’s counsel $1,000.00 for services rendered that benefited both parties. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s judgment is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 S.W.3d 51, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 716, 2001 WL 435430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-williams-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack