Case Name: William L. BRADLEY, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Emily L. BRADLEY, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-12-07
Citations: 151 S.W.3d 80
Docket Number: No. ED 84074
Parties: William L. BRADLEY, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Emily L. BRADLEY, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 151
Pages: 80–81

Head Matter:
William L. BRADLEY, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Emily L. BRADLEY, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 84074.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Dec. 7, 2004.
Joseph R. Aubuchon, Daniel Eugene Leslie, co-counsel Union, MO, for Appellant.
Sidney A. Thayer Jr., Washington, MO, for Respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
William L. Bradley (Husband) appeals from a trial court judgment entered in a dissolution action. Husband alleges trial court error in the division of marital property, the denial of retroactive and prospective child support, the parenting plan approved and ordered by the court, the finding that an Antenuptial Agreement was unenforceable, and the award of attorney's and guardian ad litem fees. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as to Husband's allegations of error. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).