Case Name: In the Estate of Dwayne A. NELSON, Decedent. Ambir Nelson and Kortney Nelson, Heirs of the Decedent by and through their Mother and Next Friend, Jeanne Eich, Appellants, v. Gerard A. NESTER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dwayne A. Nelson, and Jennifer Hanks, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-06-26
Citations: 226 S.W.3d 903
Docket Number: No. ED 89158
Parties: In the Estate of Dwayne A. NELSON, Decedent. Ambir Nelson and Kortney Nelson, Heirs of the Decedent by and through their Mother and Next Friend, Jeanne Eich, Appellants, v. Gerard A. NESTER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dwayne A. Nelson, and Jennifer Hanks, Respondents.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 226
Pages: 903–903

Head Matter:
In the Estate of Dwayne A. NELSON, Decedent. Ambir Nelson and Kortney Nelson, Heirs of the Decedent by and through their Mother and Next Friend, Jeanne Eich, Appellants, v. Gerard A. NESTER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dwayne A. Nelson, and Jennifer Hanks, Respondents.
No. ED 89158.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
June 26, 2007.
Gerard A. Nester, Saint Louis, MO, pro se.
Richard J. Keyes, Sunset Hills, MO, for respondents.
Misty A. Watson, Saint Louis, MO, for appellants.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ambir and Kortney Nelson, by and through their mother and next friend, Jeanne Eich, appeal the probate court's judgment declaring certain real estate to be owned by Dwayne Nelson ("Husband") and Jennifer Hanks ('Wife") as tenants in common. Husband and Wife's separation agreement, calling for Wife to quitclaim her interest in the real estate, is not enforceable because it was not presented to, and approved by, the dissolution court as is required by the statute and the agreement's own plain language.
An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).