Case Name: Eileen M. TURLEY, Respondent, v. Edward F. TURLEY, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-08-23
Citations: 169 S.W.3d 559
Docket Number: No. ED 85340
Parties: Eileen M. TURLEY, Respondent, v. Edward F. TURLEY, Appellant.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, C.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 169
Pages: 559–560

Head Matter:
Eileen M. TURLEY, Respondent, v. Edward F. TURLEY, Appellant.
No. ED 85340.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Aug. 23, 2005.
Francis James Murphy III, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Nathan S. Cohen, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, C.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Edward F. Turley ("Husband") appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his motion to modify spousal maintenance. The marriage of Husband and Eileen M. Turley ('Wife") was dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage entered on December 7, 2000 ("Decree"). On appeal, Husband asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify because: (i) Wife failed to obtain gainful employment after three years; and (ii) a decrease in his salary constituted a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the Decree. We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the general principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).