Case Name: In re MARRIAGE OF Pamela L. SCADUTO and Andrew J. Scaduto. Pamela L. SCADUTO, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Andrew J. SCADUTO, Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1994-06-07
Citations: 877 S.W.2d 217
Docket Number: No. 64125
Parties: In re MARRIAGE OF Pamela L. SCADUTO and Andrew J. Scaduto. Pamela L. SCADUTO, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Andrew J. SCADUTO, Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 877
Pages: 217–217

Head Matter:
In re MARRIAGE OF Pamela L. SCADUTO and Andrew J. Scaduto. Pamela L. SCADUTO, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Andrew J. SCADUTO, Respondent/Appellant.
No. 64125.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
June 7, 1994.
Daniel P. Card, II, Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C., Clayton, for appellant.
Michael B. Stern, Stern, Frapolli, & Steiger, St. Louis, Dudley C. Dunlop, Clayton, for respondent.
Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the trial court's judgment in a dissolution case. 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.App.1976).
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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).