Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hughes v. Hughes

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 13, 2016No. ED 103535Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLawrence E. Mooney, Judge

I dissent from Section II B of the principal opinion, which holds the trial court erred in granting wife’s motion to dismiss.

The case presents a simple and common scenario. Parties to a divorce entered into a detailed settlement agreement specifying when maintenance might be modified. They dutifully sought to have the trial judge incorporate the separation agreement into the court’s judgment. But the preprinted form for dissolution judgments required that the judge characterize the maintenance as being either “not subject to modification” or “subject to modification,” pursuant to a local…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Transit Casualty Co. in Receivership v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of LondonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. Boden v. BodenMissouri Court of Appeals · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API