Case Name: In re MARRIAGE OF Elizabeth HAVERMAN and Dale Haverman. Elizabeth Haverman, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Dale Haverman, Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-12-28
Citations: 153 S.W.3d 873
Docket Number: No. ED 83759
Parties: In re MARRIAGE OF Elizabeth HAVERMAN and Dale Haverman. Elizabeth Haverman, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Dale Haverman, Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 153
Pages: 873–874

Head Matter:
In re MARRIAGE OF Elizabeth HAVERMAN and Dale Haverman. Elizabeth Haverman, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Dale Haverman, Respondent/Appellant.
No. ED 83759.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Dec. 28, 2004.
James J. Leightner, Gerard Diekman, Diekman & Leightner, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
N. Kimasa Sindel, Murphy, Sindel & Coston, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Father appeals from a judgment modifying a decree of dissolution of marriage. We find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erro neously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).