Summary
In Bohnert v. Bohnert, 91 Cal. 431, there was not as strong a showing, either as to good faith or a meritorious appeal, as appears in the case at bar, and yet in that case it was held that the record disclosed nothing to justify this court in disturbing the discretion in awarding alimony, pending the appeal, exercised by the trial court in that case, and in our judgment there is less warrant for doing so in the case at bar.
Summary of this case from Gay v. GayOpinion
No. 52615.
January 12, 1988.
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT, PERRY COUNTY; CURT M. VOGEL, JUDGE.
David B. Lacks, Kris R. Baumgartner, St. Louis, for respondent-appellant.
Herbert A. Kasten, Jr., Ste. Genevieve, for petitioner-respondent.
ORDER
Husband appeals from the portions of a dissolution decree that distributed the marital property and awarded maintenance to wife. Wife contends, with some justification, that husband's points relied on do not comply with Rule 84.04(d). Nevertheless, we have reviewed the merits of husband's contentions in light of the standards set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), and conclude from the record that the distribution of marital property and the award of maintenance are supported by substantial evidence. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).