Case ID: sw2d_914/html/0825-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leda GOLDENBERG, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Stuart GOLDENBERG, Respondent/Respondent.
    No. 68287.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Dec. 26, 1995.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 7, 1996.
    Rosenblum, Goldenhersh, Silverstein & Zafft, P.C., Merle L. Silverstein; Sanford J. Boxerman, Clayton, for appellant.
    Eisen, Gillespie & Hilton, Lawrence G. Gillespie, Webster Groves, for respondent.
    Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wife appeals from the portions of the dissolution decree denying her request for maintenance. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are not erroneous; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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).

Judgment affirmed.