Case Name: Mary Catherine DOLEZAL, Respondent, v. William Alan DOLEZAL, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-09-24
Citations: 86 S.W.3d 130
Docket Number: No. ED 80498
Parties: Mary Catherine DOLEZAL, Respondent, v. William Alan DOLEZAL, Appellant.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 86
Pages: 130–130

Head Matter:
Mary Catherine DOLEZAL, Respondent, v. William Alan DOLEZAL, Appellant.
No. ED 80498.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Sept. 24, 2002.
Dorothy J. Harper, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Joanne M. Descher, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
William Alan Dolezal (Husband) appeals from the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Mary Catherine Dolezal (Wife). Husband argues the trial court erred in (1) granting Wife statutory, modifiable maintenance; (2) awarding Wife $2,000.00 per month in maintenance; (3) finding Timothy Dolezal, son, is not emancipated; (4) allowing testimony of Ms. Melba McClelland as an expert witness; (5) calculating the amount of child support due to Wife; (6) ordering Husband to pay one-half of the college room, board, and activity fees for Emily Dolezal, daughter; (7) failing to award part of the child support directly to Emily Dolezal as daily expense money; (8) undervaluing the household property and not setting aside Husband's stock as separate property; and (9) awarding Wife attorney's fees. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).