Case Name: IN the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF: Jake Andrew PALUMBO, Deceased
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-05-24
Citations: 497 S.W.3d 282
Docket Number: No. ED 103688
Parties: IN the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF: Jake Andrew PALUMBO, Deceased
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 497
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
IN the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF: Jake Andrew PALUMBO, Deceased
No. ED 103688
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Filed: May 24, 2016
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 30, 2016
Application for Transfer Denied September 20, 2016
FOR APPELLANT: Martin M. Clay, Jr., The Clay Law Firm, 1336 Kensington Way, St. Louis, Missouri 63011.
FOR RESPONDENT: Robert n. Hamilton, Reinker, Hamilton & Piper, LLC, 2016 South Big Bend Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63117.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Jennifer Keith (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (the probate division) denying her claims against the Estate of Jake Andrew Palum-bo (the Estate). In four points on appeal, Appellant argues that the probate division erred by concluding that a provision of the marital settlement agreement of Appellant and Jake Palumbo (Decedent) was invalid and unenforceable. Appellant also contends that the probate division erred by concluding that the Estate was not required, under the marital settlement agreement, to indemnify Appellant for her legal fees. The Estate filed a cross-appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by denying its counterclaim for attorney's fees. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).