From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turley v. Turley

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Aug 23, 2005
169 S.W.3d 559 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

No. ED 85340.

August 23, 2005.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Ellen Levy Siwak, Judge.

Francis James Murphy III, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Nathan S. Cohen, Clayton, MO, for respondent.

Before GLENN A. NORTON, C.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.


ORDER


Appellant Edward F. Turley ("Husband") appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his motion to modify spousal maintenance. The marriage of Husband and Eileen M. Turley ("Wife") was dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage entered on December 7, 2000 ("Decree"). On appeal, Husband asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify because: (i) Wife failed to obtain gainful employment after three years; and (ii) a decrease in his salary constituted a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the Decree. We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the general principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Turley v. Turley

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Aug 23, 2005
169 S.W.3d 559 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

Turley v. Turley

Case Details

Full title:Eileen M. TURLEY, Respondent, v. Edward F. TURLEY, Appellant

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District

Date published: Aug 23, 2005

Citations

169 S.W.3d 559 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)

Citing Cases

Miss. Valley Trust Co. v. Begley

We have dealt with communications not directly made by the beneficiaries of the contract. See Hensinger v.…