Case Name: Ernest SEIDELMANN, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Maria E. SEIDELMANN, Respondent/Cross-Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-04-07
Citations: 964 S.W.2d 558
Docket Number: Nos. 72191, 72256
Parties: Ernest SEIDELMANN, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Maria E. SEIDELMANN, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 964
Pages: 558–558

Head Matter:
Ernest SEIDELMANN, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Maria E. SEIDELMANN, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
Nos. 72191, 72256.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 7, 1998.
Rothman, Sokol, Adler & Sarachan, P.C., S. Todd Hamby, St. Louis, for appellant.
Ziercher & Hocker, P.C., Christopher Kar-len, Clayton, for respondent.
Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner raises four points on appeal. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss because the terms of the separation agreement are too uncertain and indefinite or conditional and hence, cannot be enforced and argues the trial court erred in declaring him a tenant in common with Respondent. Respondent also raises two points on cross-appeal challenging the amount of the trial court's judgment.
The trial court's judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears and 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 judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).