Case Name: In re the MARRIAGE OF David W. SCHWARTZ and Claudia M. Schwartz. David W. Schwartz, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Claudia M. Schwartz, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-02-28
Citations: 38 S.W.3d 487
Docket Number: No. ED 77267
Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF David W. SCHWARTZ and Claudia M. Schwartz. David W. Schwartz, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Claudia M. Schwartz, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, C.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT E. CRIST, Sr. J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 38
Pages: 487–488

Head Matter:
In re the MARRIAGE OF David W. SCHWARTZ and Claudia M. Schwartz. David W. Schwartz, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Claudia M. Schwartz, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 77267.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Feb. 28, 2001.
Lawrence G. Gillespie, Gillespie, Hetlage & Coughlin, L.L.C., Clayton, MO, for appellant.
Greg L. Roberts, The Roberts Law Firm, Chesterfield, MO, for respondent.’
Before MARY K. HOFF, C.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT E. CRIST, Sr. J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a decree of dissolution of marriage. 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 80, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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).