Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Douglas E. Graham Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
douglas-e-graham
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Douglas E. Graham

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Date unavailable

Nicole M. Graham, Appellant, v. Douglas E. Graham, Respondent.

Respondent

Nicole M. Graham appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Douglas E. Graham, specifically challenging the finding that a waiver of marital interest in property signed by Husband was invalid. The trial court had determined the waiver was an invalid postnuptial agreement because Husband did not sign it freely, knowingly, and with full disclosure, and it was unconscionable. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the waiver failed to meet the requirements for a valid postnuptial agreement and was unconscionable due to lack of fair consideration.