Benbenek v. Benbenek

Missouri Court of Appeals

Benbenek v. Benbenek

528 S.W.3d 440

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104193

StatusPublished

This text of 528 S.W.3d 440 (Benbenek v. Benbenek) 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

Benbenek v. Benbenek, 528 S.W.3d 440 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Teresa N. Shelledy-Benbenek (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s judgment modifying custody between her and her former husband, Thomas P. Benbenek (“Father”), over their minor children, H.B. and Q.B. (collectively the “Children”). Mother raises three points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in awarding Father sole legal custody of the Children because there was no substantial change in circumstances; (2) the trial court erred in changing the designation of residential parent from Mother to Father because there was no substantial change of circumstances; and (3) the trial court erred in continuing to allocate physical custody equally between the parties. Finding no error of law, we affirm. 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 this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Teresa N. Shelledy-Benbenek (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s judgment modifying custody between her and her former husband, Thomas P. Benbenek (“Father”), over their minor children, H.B. and Q.B. (collectively the “Children”). Mother raises three points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in awarding Father sole legal custody of the Children because there was no substantial change in circumstances; (2) the trial court erred in changing the designation of residential parent from Mother to Father because there was no substantial change of circumstances; and (3) the trial court erred in continuing to allocate physical custody equally between the parties. Finding no error of law, we affirm. 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 this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 S.W.3d 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benbenek-v-benbenek-moctapp-2017.