“where future events which may be pertinent to the issues of maintenance are uncertain, such an award should be modifiable.”
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Taylor v. Taylor
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
where future events which may be pertinent to the issues of maintenance are uncertain, such an award should be modifiable.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donna Lynn (Tate) Librach v. Stanley L. Librach
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Parciak v. Parciak, 553 S.W.3d 446, 455 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rebecca Alport v. Jeffrey Alport
Under the current dissolution statutes, "our Supreme Court has held that Section 452.330.1's division of marital property and debts may be accomplished with respect to real estate either by including language in a decree sufficient to convey title without further action by the parties, or by ordering spouses to execute deeds of conveyance subject to 2 The holdings in Roche as well as Fields and its progeny left the trial court in the impossible position of being required, subject to plain error review, to include the legal descriptions for all real property effected, even when the parties fail…
discussed
Cited "see"
Gwen M. Spicer v. Steven G. Spicer, and Debra S. Pauli, and John Doe and Jane Doe
See Parciak v. Parciak, 553 S.W.3d 446, 456-57 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) 9 (“In Missouri, a conveyance of real property to a husband and wife as co-grantees is presumed to create a tenancy by the entirety if there are no limiting words[.]”), Estate of King v. Smith, 572 S.W.2¢d 200, 211 (Mo. App. K.C.D. 1978) (“Tenancy by the entirety can only be created between husband and wife[.]’”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jermaine PIERCE
v.
STATE of Missouri
v.
STATE of Missouri
No. ED 105701.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Aug 7, 2018.
553 S.W.3d 446
Published
Citer courts: Missouri Court of Appeals (1)
PER CURIAM.
Jermaine Pierce appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).