Case ID: sw3d_161/html/0909-01.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

Arthur M. BUCKOWITZ, Respondent, v. Phyllis L. BUCKOWITZ, Appellant.
    No. ED 84293.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    April 26, 2005.
    James J. Leightner, Robert E. Faerber, Clayton, MO, for Appellant.
    Lake, Gantz & Lake, L.L.C., Thomas H. Lake, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
    Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Phyllis L. Buckowitz appeals from the judgment reducing Arthur M. Buckowitz’s maintenance obligation. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).