Case ID: sw2d_860/html/0354-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Merlyn BARTH, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Penelope EVANS, f/k/a Penelope Barth, Respondent/Respondent.
    No. 62609.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    July 20, 1993.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1993.
    William P. Grant, William S. Margulis, Margulis & Grants St. Louis, for petitioner, appellant.
    Penelope Evans, pro se.
   ORDER

Husband appeals from the motion court’s order denying his motion to modify that portion of the dissolution decree awarding maintenance. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; 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 our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).