Case Name: Julie Ann BAUGH, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Lawrence Thomas EISELE, Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-11-09
Citations: 4 S.W.3d 630
Docket Number: No. ED 75252
Parties: Julie Ann BAUGH, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Lawrence Thomas EISELE, Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before: RHODES RUSSELL, C.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, SR.J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 4
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
Julie Ann BAUGH, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Lawrence Thomas EISELE, Respondent/Appellant.
No. ED 75252.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Nov. 9, 1999.
Brice F. Hilton, Lawrence G. Gillespie, Kirkwood, for appellant.
Sanford J. Miller, William F. Whealen, Sharon E. Remis, St. Louis, for respondent.
Before: RHODES RUSSELL, C.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, SR.J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Father appeals the trial court's judgment modifying the dissolution decree by increasing his monthly child support payments. We find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (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 for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).