Case Name: Constance L. ASKEW-KLEIN, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Kenneth D. KLEIN, Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2008-03-25
Citations: 248 S.W.3d 640
Docket Number: No. ED 89650
Parties: Constance L. ASKEW-KLEIN, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Kenneth D. KLEIN, Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 248
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
Constance L. ASKEW-KLEIN, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Kenneth D. KLEIN, Respondent/Appellant.
No. ED 89650.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
March 25, 2008.
Justin C. Cordonnier, Amanda B. McNelley, St. Louis, MO, for Petitioner/Respondent.
Charles P. Todt, Tonya Dianne Fifer, Clayton, MO, for Respondent/Appellant.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth D. Klein appeals from the trial court's judgment modifying his maintenance obligation. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Beeler v. Beeler, 820 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Mo.App. W.D.1991). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).