Case Name: James N. APOLLO, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Donna APOLLO, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-06-12
Citations: 46 S.W.3d 664
Docket Number: No. ED 77814
Parties: James N. APOLLO, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Donna APOLLO, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PAUL J. SIMON, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 46
Pages: 664–664

Head Matter:
James N. APOLLO, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Donna APOLLO, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 77814.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
June 12, 2001.
Susan M Hais, Philip Edward Adams, Law Office of Hais & Carmody, Clayton, MO, for Respondent.
W. Morris Taylor, Michael Kornblum, Gerald A. Sims, Jr., Law Office of W. Morris Taylor, P.C., Clayton, MO, for Appellant.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PAUL J. SIMON, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
James N. Apollo appeals from a trial court judgment denying in part and granting in part his Motion to Modify Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. The judgment also granted in part and denied in part Donna Apollo's Counter-Motion to Modify. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. Hartzell v. Hartzell, 976 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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).