Case Name: David M. RUBIN, Respondent, v. Michelle Marie GIANELLA, formerly Michelle Marie Rubin, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1982-04-06
Citations: 633 S.W.2d 210
Docket Number: No. 43945
Parties: David M. RUBIN, Respondent, v. Michelle Marie GIANELLA, formerly Michelle Marie Rubin, Appellant.
Judges: REINHARD, P. J., and SNYDER, J., concur.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 633
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
David M. RUBIN, Respondent, v. Michelle Marie GIANELLA, formerly Michelle Marie Rubin, Appellant.
No. 43945.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
April 6, 1982.
Mildred R. Hessel, Hessel & Hessel, Clayton, Mo., for appellant.
Claude Hanks, Creve Coeur, for respondent.

Opinion:
CRIST, Judge.
The couple's marriage was dissolved after ten years. The parties had four children, ages one and a half, three, six and a half and ten. Wife appeals and we affirm.
Wife, 28 years old, suffers from glaucoma and is blind in one eye. Her appeal brings before us the following actions of the trial court:
(1) Award of temporary custody of the children at the times designated in the decree;
(2) Division of marital property; and
(3) Awards of child support and maintenance in the total sum of $670.00, which amount was approximately 37 percent of the husband's take-home pay.
Our review of the transcript convinces us that the trial court properly:
(1)Considered those factors relating to temporary child custody enumerated in § 452.375, RSMo. 1978. See, In re Marriage of Powers, 527 S.W.2d 949, 953 (Mo.App.1975), and Cissell v. Cissell, 573 S.W.2d 722, 724 (Mo.App.1978);
(2) Followed the guidelines of § 452.330 in dividing marital property, Pehle v. Pehle, 622 S.W.2d 711, 712-713 (Mo.App.1981);
(3) Took into account the mandate of § 452.340 in awarding child support. See, McKelvey v. McKelvey, 585 S.W.2d 544 (Mo.App.1979) and Brueggemann v. Brueggemann, 551 S.W.2d 853, 859 (Mo.App.1977); and
(4) Reflected on the command of § 452.-335 in awarding maintenance, Royal v. Royal, 617 S.W.2d 615, 619 (Mo.App.1981).
The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.
Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
REINHARD, P. J., and SNYDER, J., concur.