Case Name: In re MARRIAGE OF James Martin and Carol Ann HOBBS. James Martin, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Carol Ann Hobbs, Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-10-03
Citations: 202 S.W.3d 92
Docket Number: No. ED 87120
Parties: In re MARRIAGE OF James Martin and Carol Ann HOBBS. James Martin, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Carol Ann Hobbs, Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 202
Pages: 92–93

Head Matter:
In re MARRIAGE OF James Martin and Carol Ann HOBBS. James Martin, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Carol Ann Hobbs, Respondent/Appellant.
No. ED 87120.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Oct. 3, 2006.
James D. Burlison, Mcllroy and Millan, Troy, MO, for respondent.
Benicia Baker-Livorsi, The Family Law Group LLC, St. Charles, MO, for appellant.
Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Former wife appeals from a judgment of the trial court entered on the parties' cross motions to modify the child visitation, custody, and support awards in a decree of dissolution. The trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).