Case Name: Arthur M. BUCKOWITZ, Respondent, v. Phyllis L. BUCKOWITZ, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-04-26
Citations: 161 S.W.3d 909
Docket Number: No. ED 84293
Parties: Arthur M. BUCKOWITZ, Respondent, v. Phyllis L. BUCKOWITZ, Appellant.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 161
Pages: 909–909

Head Matter:
Arthur M. BUCKOWITZ, Respondent, v. Phyllis L. BUCKOWITZ, Appellant.
No. ED 84293.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
April 26, 2005.
James J. Leightner, Robert E. Faerber, Clayton, MO, for Appellant.
Lake, Gantz & Lake, L.L.C., Thomas H. Lake, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Phyllis L. Buckowitz appeals from the judgment reducing Arthur M. Buckowitz's maintenance obligation. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).