Albritton v. Albritton

Missouri Court of Appeals

Albritton v. Albritton

103 S.W.3d 872, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 539, 2003 WL 1873569

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 15, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81053

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.W.3d 872 (Albritton v. Albritton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albritton v. Albritton, 103 S.W.3d 872, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 539, 2003 WL 1873569 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Scott Albritton (Father) appeals from a trial court Judgment and Decree of Dissolution. Father alleges that the trial court erred in its calculation of child support and child support arrearages based upon the court’s imputation of income to Father. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imputing monthly income to Father in the amount of $3,910, and therefore it did not err in its calculation of child support and child support arrearages. Burton v. Donahue, 69 S.W.3d 76, 79 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Scott Albritton (Father) appeals from a trial court Judgment and Decree of Dissolution. Father alleges that the trial court erred in its calculation of child support and child support arrearages based upon the court’s imputation of income to Father. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imputing monthly income to Father in the amount of $3,910, and therefore it did not err in its calculation of child support and child support arrearages. Burton v. Donahue, 69 S.W.3d 76, 79 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.W.3d 872, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 539, 2003 WL 1873569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albritton-v-albritton-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack