Case Name: In re MARRIAGE OF Kathleen MILLS and Robert Mills. Kathleen MILLS, Petitioner/Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Robert MILLS, Respondent/Appellant/Cross-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-10-24
Citations: 908 S.W.2d 188
Docket Number: Nos. 66899, 67107
Parties: In re MARRIAGE OF Kathleen MILLS and Robert Mills. Kathleen MILLS, Petitioner/Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Robert MILLS, Respondent/Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANE, C.J., SIMON, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 908
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
In re MARRIAGE OF Kathleen MILLS and Robert Mills. Kathleen MILLS, Petitioner/Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Robert MILLS, Respondent/Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
Nos. 66899, 67107.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Oct. 24, 1995.
Susan M. Hais, Hais & Carmody, P.C., St. Louis, for Kathleen Mills.
Michael C. Walther, Walther & Roberts, Clayton, Rochelle A. Kaskowitz, St. Louis, for Robert Mills.
Before CRANE, C.J., SIMON, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Both parties appeal from the trial court's judgment in a dissolution ease. 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.1976).
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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).