Bone v. Bone

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bone v. Bone

248 S.W.3d 67, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 105, 2008 WL 169790

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 22, 2008

DocketED 89241

StatusPublished

This text of 248 S.W.3d 67 (Bone v. Bone) 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

Bone v. Bone, 248 S.W.3d 67, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 105, 2008 WL 169790 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Roger Bone appeals from the judgment dissolving his marriage to Sheila Bone. Roger Bone contends the trial court erred (1) in its division of marital property, and (2) in imputing income to him in calculating child support.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The division of property was fair and equitable under the circumstances of the case. Hart v. Hart, 210 S.W.3d 480, 485 (Mo.App. W.D.2007). Further, the trial court’s child support is support by substantial evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discre *68 tion. Franklin v. Franklin, 213 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Roger Bone appeals from the judgment dissolving his marriage to Sheila Bone. Roger Bone contends the trial court erred (1) in its division of marital property, and (2) in imputing income to him in calculating child support.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The division of property was fair and equitable under the circumstances of the case. Hart v. Hart, 210 S.W.3d 480, 485 (Mo.App. W.D.2007). Further, the trial court’s child support is support by substantial evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discre *68 tion. Franklin v. Franklin, 213 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.W.3d 67, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 105, 2008 WL 169790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bone-v-bone-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack