Case Name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Edward D. MERACLE and Nicole D. Meracle Edward D. Meracle, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Nicole D. Meracle, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2009-10-20
Citations: 295 S.W.3d 224
Docket Number: No. ED 91432
Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Edward D. MERACLE and Nicole D. Meracle Edward D. Meracle, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Nicole D. Meracle, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 295
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
In re the MARRIAGE OF Edward D. MERACLE and Nicole D. Meracle Edward D. Meracle, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Nicole D. Meracle, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 91432.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Oct. 20, 2009.
Susan F. Jacobsen, Bauer Soule Garn-holtz Albin, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Timothy W. Roldan, The Law Offices of Timothy W. Roldan, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Wife, Nicole D. Meraele, appeals from a decree of dissolution of marriage. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (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 for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied as moot.