Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Richard Lloyd Hemker, Appellant, v. Betty June Hemker, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: family-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-lloyd-hemker-appellant-v-betty-june-hemker-respondent-13012
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13012
Related Practice Areas:
- Family Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/family?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=family&ott_archive_query=Richard+Lloyd+Hemker%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+Betty+June+Hemker%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+family-law%3B+text%3A+dissolution&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: family; source: tag; score: 24; evidence: tag: family-law, text: dissolution, text: maintenance)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Richard Lloyd Hemker, Appellant, v. Betty June Hemker, Respondent.
Case Number:  72672
Handdown Date:  03/31/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Franklin County, Hon. Walter A. Murray, Jr.
Counsel for Appellant:  Larry G. Mittendorf
Counsel for Respondent:  Craig Hellman
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  R. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Richard Lloyd Hemker, Husband, appeals from judgment granting a dissolution from Betty June Hemker, Wife. 
Husband   contends   the   court   erred   in:     (1)   valuing   the   materials   and   equipment   owned   by   Kaston   Service;   (2)   the 
maintenance award; (3) its findings of fact; (4) finding investigation costs are legitimate costs of litigation; (5) award of 
attorney's fees; and (6) division of marital assets.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without 
merit.  An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value.
We have reviewed Wife's motion to dismiss the appeal, and it is denied.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.