Case Name: In re MARRIAGE OF Mark E. HETHCOTE and Denise K. HETHCOTE. Mark E. Hethcote, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Denise Otto f/k/a Hethcote, Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2008-02-19
Citations: 245 S.W.3d 917
Docket Number: No. ED 89739
Parties: In re MARRIAGE OF Mark E. HETHCOTE and Denise K. HETHCOTE. Mark E. Hethcote, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Denise Otto f/k/a Hethcote, Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 245
Pages: 917–918

Head Matter:
In re MARRIAGE OF Mark E. HETHCOTE and Denise K. HETHCOTE. Mark E. Hethcote, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Denise Otto f/k/a Hethcote, Respondent/Appellant.
No. ED 89739.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Feb. 19, 2008.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, James R. Hartenbach.
Howard A. Wittner, David von Gontard, Matthew Kallial, Wittner, Spewak, May-lack & Spooner, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Jody H. Wolff, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Former wife appeals from a judgment of the trial court modifying maintenance. 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, 82 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opin ion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).