Case Name: In re MARRIAGE of Barbara M. HOBEROCK and Gregory E. Hoberock. Barbara M. Hoberock, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Gregory E. Hoberock, Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-03-06
Citations: 216 S.W.3d 234
Docket Number: No. ED 87537
Parties: In re MARRIAGE of Barbara M. HOBEROCK and Gregory E. Hoberock. Barbara M. Hoberock, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Gregory E. Hoberock, Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 216
Pages: 234–234

Head Matter:
In re MARRIAGE of Barbara M. HOBEROCK and Gregory E. Hoberock. Barbara M. Hoberock, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Gregory E. Hoberock, Respondent/Appellant.
No. ED 87537.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
March 6, 2007.
Jeffery T. McPherson, Cynthia A. Petra-cek, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Cary J. Mogerman, Mary E. Niemira, Joseph J. Kodner, Zerman & Mogerman LLC, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Husband, Gregory E. Hoberock, appeals from a second amended judgment entered in a dissolution case after remand. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (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.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).