Case Name: Angelique M. DAILY, Petitioner/Appellant, v. James E. DAILY, IV, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-03-21
Citations: 514 S.W.3d 61
Docket Number: No. ED 104218
Parties: Angelique M. DAILY, Petitioner/Appellant, v. James E. DAILY, IV, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 514
Pages: 61–62

Head Matter:
Angelique M. DAILY, Petitioner/Appellant, v. James E. DAILY, IV, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 104218
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: March 21, 2017
Nathan S. Cohen, 210 S. Bemiston Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105, for For Petitioner/Appellant.
Mary Ann Weems, 7751 Carondelet Avenue, Suite 505, Clayton, MO 63105, for For Respondent/Respondent.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Angelique M. Daily appeals from the trial court's Memorandum, Order and Amended Judgment dissolving her marriage to James E. Daily, IV. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Ulreich v. Kreutz, 876 S.W.2d 726, 728 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994); Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc. 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).