
    Sharon A. ROETHEMEYER, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Willis D. ROETHEMEYER, Respondent/Appellant.
    No. 60374.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    June 2, 1992.
    Donald K. Gerard, Clayton, for appellant.
    Claude Hanks, Chesterfield, for respondent.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Husband appeals after the denial of his motion to modify a dissolution decree wherein he had asked that the order to pay maintenance be terminated. We affirm. The trial court did not err and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).  