Case Name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Kendall Sue SHATRO and Robert A. Shatro. Kendall Sue Shatro, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Robert A. Shatro, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-06-12
Citations: 367 S.W.3d 678
Docket Number: No. ED 96739
Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Kendall Sue SHATRO and Robert A. Shatro. Kendall Sue Shatro, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Robert A. Shatro, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J„ and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 367
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
In re the MARRIAGE OF Kendall Sue SHATRO and Robert A. Shatro. Kendall Sue Shatro, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Robert A. Shatro, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 96739.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
June 12, 2012.
Aaron S. Dubin, Rachel M. Shenker, Frankel, Rubin, Bond, Dubin, Siegel, & Klein, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jane Ellen, Tomich Knight & Tomich, St. Charles, MO, for respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J„ and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Mother appeals from a judgment of the trial court entered on the parties' cross-motions to modify the child support provisions of a previously modified dissolution decree and for other relief, and on father's motion for contempt. The trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).