Case Name: Barbara T. TUREEN, Petitioner/Appellant, v. John F. TUREEN, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-11-21
Citations: 916 S.W.2d 212
Docket Number: No. 66969
Parties: Barbara T. TUREEN, Petitioner/Appellant, v. John F. TUREEN, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before AHRENS, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 916
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
Barbara T. TUREEN, Petitioner/Appellant, v. John F. TUREEN, Respondent/Respondent.
No. 66969.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Nov. 21, 1995.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 7, 1996.
Application to Transfer Denied March 26, 1996.
Michael A. Gross, St. Louis, for appellant.
David B. Lacks, Leigh Joy Carson, Clayton, for respondent.
Before AHRENS, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner appeals from the trial court's judgment dissolving the marriage. We have carefully reviewed the transcript and legal file. The trial court acted within its discretion and its findings are supported by the evidence.
The trial court awarded the Venice, Illinois real estate to respondent. The record does not indicate whether petitioner signed the note and deed of trust on that property in favor of Magna Bank. We clarify the trial court's judgment by assigning that debt to respondent and ordering that he hold petitioner harmless on that indebtedness. Rule 84.14.
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 84.1603).