Case ID: sw2d_796/html/0031-01.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

Jo Ann JOST, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank J. JOST, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 56985.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Aug. 7, 1990.
    Joseph Howlett, Charles M. Shaw, Shaw, Howlett & Schwarz, Clayton, for defendant-appellant.
    Ronald L. Rothman, Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The husband appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify a separation agreement. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential 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).