Case Name: George H. KISTER, Respondent, v. Karen MOCULESKI, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 333 S.W.3d 528
Docket Number: No. ED 93690
Parties: George H. KISTER, Respondent, v. Karen MOCULESKI, Appellant.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 333
Pages: 528–528

Head Matter:
George H. KISTER, Respondent, v. Karen MOCULESKI, Appellant.
No. ED 93690.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
March 8, 2011.
Alan E. Freed, Paule, Camazine & Blul-menthal, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Craig G. Kallen, Patrick W. Pedano, Kallen Law Firm, LLC, Town & Country, MO, for Respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Karen C. Moculeski (Wife) appeals from the judgment dissolving her marriage to George H. Kister (Husband) and that divided the parties' mai'ital and separate property and apportioned their debts. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or 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).