Chatman v. Chatman

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chatman v. Chatman

783 S.W.2d 131, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1683, 1989 WL 145907

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 28, 1989

DocketNo. 56416

StatusPublished

This text of 783 S.W.2d 131 (Chatman v. Chatman) 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

Chatman v. Chatman, 783 S.W.2d 131, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1683, 1989 WL 145907 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Husband appeals a pendente lite order in his dissolution case granting wife $80 per week maintenance and $800 for her attorney fees.

[132]*132The trial court has broad discretion in pendente lite orders in a dissolution case. In re the Marriage of Newman, 601 S.W.2d 632, 633[1] (Mo.App.1980). An appeal should not be taken unless there is a clear abuse of such discretion. Knauss v. Knauss, 425 S.W.2d 713, 716[1] (Mo.App.1968). We find no such abuse in this case.

The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, does not erroneously apply the law, and is not against the weight of the evidence. Newman, 601 S.W.2d at 633[1]. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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