Case Name: In re the MARRIAGE OF Thomas N. SONDERMAN and Phyllis L. Sonderman. Thomas Sonderman, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Phyllis St. Clair, f/k/a Phyllis L. Sonderman, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-02-28
Citations: 188 S.W.3d 94
Docket Number: No. ED 86507
Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Thomas N. SONDERMAN and Phyllis L. Sonderman. Thomas Sonderman, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Phyllis St. Clair, f/k/a Phyllis L. Sonderman, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 188
Pages: 94–94

Head Matter:
In re the MARRIAGE OF Thomas N. SONDERMAN and Phyllis L. Sonderman. Thomas Sonderman, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Phyllis St. Clair, f/k/a Phyllis L. Sonderman, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 86507.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Feb. 28, 2006.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 10, 2006.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Thea A. Sherry, Judge.
Susan K. Roach, The Roach Law Firm, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
Paul H. Schramm, Edwards, Schramm, Young & Bielenson, L.L.P., Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Former husband appeals from a judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify the maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. 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).