Case Name: In re the Marriage of: Gary GALLEBERG, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Kristen GALLEBERG, Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-09-11
Citations: 559 S.W.3d 59
Docket Number: No. ED 105879
Parties: In re the Marriage of: Gary GALLEBERG, Respondent/Cross-Appellant,
v.
Kristen GALLEBERG, Appellant.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 559
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
In re the Marriage of: Gary GALLEBERG, Respondent/Cross-Appellant,
v.
Kristen GALLEBERG, Appellant.
No. ED 105879
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: September 11, 2018
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied October 15, 2018
Samuel J. Hais, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
Terry L. Jones, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Sarah S. Pleban, Guard Ad Litem.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this consolidated case, mother, Kristen Schattgen Galleberg, and father, Gary Galleberg, appeal the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dissolving their marriage, distributing the property and debt, and ordering maintenance, child support, and payment of the child's private-school tuition. The parties settled child-custody issues before trial. Finding no error, we affirm.
An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.
We affirm the trial court's judgment. Rule 84.16(b)(1).
Father's motion to strike mother's cross-response and reply brief is denied. Mother's motion to strike father's reply brief is granted. Rule 84.04(i) states in relevant part that "[t]he respondent may file a reply brief in reply to appellant's response to the issues presented by respondent's appeal." In his reply brief, however, father again argues in opposition to mother's points on appeal rather than countering mother's responsive arguments to father's points on appeal.