Case ID: sw3d_540/html/0439-02.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

Patricia M. (Brady) DOWLING, Respondent, v. Edward P. DOWLING, Jr., Appellant.
    No. ED 105227
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
    Filed: February 20, 2018
    Dennis N. Smith, Jr., 231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 800, Saint Louis, MO. 63105, for appellant.
    Deborah Benoit, 6614 Clayton Rd. #166, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.
    Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM.

Edward P. Dowling, Jr. ("Husband") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, denying his motion to modify his maintenance obligation owed to Patricia M. (Brady) Dowling ("Wife"). On appeal, Husband argues a substantial and continuing change in circumstances occurred to support modification of maintenance because Wife increased her monthly retirement savings post-dissolution, the motion court relied on an incorrect computation of Wife's reasonable monthly income and expenses, and the motion court misapplied the law when it determined the prohibition on maintenance being used to accumulate capital did not apply in a modification proceeding. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).