Case Name: Candice L. BLACKSTOCK, Respondent, v. Richard L. BLACKSTOCK, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-12-20
Citations: 510 S.W.3d 358
Docket Number: No. ED 103742
Parties: Candice L. BLACKSTOCK, Respondent, v. Richard L. BLACKSTOCK, Appellant.
Judges: Before Robert M, Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 510
Pages: 358–358

Head Matter:
Candice L. BLACKSTOCK, Respondent, v. Richard L. BLACKSTOCK, Appellant.
No. ED 103742
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
FILED: December 20, 2016
Rehearing Denied January 30, 2017
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 30, 2017
Kurt A. Voss, Kevin Albert Richardson, Co-Counsel, Zick, Voss, Politte & Richardson, P.C., Washington, MO, Attorney for Appellant.
Michael C. Todt, St. Charles, MO, Dylan Russell Briggs, Co-Counsel, Todt, Ryan, Cody & Fuchs, LLC, St. Louis, MO, Attorney for Respondent.
Before Robert M, Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Richard L. Blackstock appeals from the judgment dissolving his marriage to Candice L. Blackstock and dividing marital property, debts, setting aside non-marital property, and awarding child custody and support. 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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).