Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

STEPHANIE MAXINE STENGER, f/k/a Stephanie Stenger Montgomery, Petitioner- 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
stephanie-maxine-stenger-f/k/a-stephanie-stenger-montgomery-petitioner
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 STEPHANIE MAXINE STENGER, f/k/a Stephanie Stenger Montgomery, Petitioner-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Martin Montgomery (Husband) appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Stephanie Stenger (Wife). Husband sought to enforce an obligation from their 2010 dissolution judgment, which had not been revived within the statutory ten-year period. The trial court dismissed the claims, finding the contract merged into the judgment and the judgment was conclusively presumed paid under Section 516.350.1. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the survival clause in the parties' agreement did not prevent merger by judgment, and the unjust enrichment claim was also barred as it arose from the same conclusively paid judgment.