Craig v. Lorna L. House

Missouri Court of Appeals

Craig v. Lorna L. House

545 S.W.3d 926

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105320

StatusPublished

This text of 545 S.W.3d 926 (Craig v. Lorna L. House) 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

Craig v. Lorna L. House, 545 S.W.3d 926 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*927Lorna L. House appeals from the trial court's judgment denying her Motion for Contempt and Sanctions and finding Richard J. Craig not in contempt for failing to pay maintenance as ordered in the Decree of Dissolution. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was supported by substantial evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. Nance v. Nance, 880 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994) ; Henderson v. Henderson, 389 S.W.3d 260, 266 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). 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

PER CURIAM.

*927Lorna L. House appeals from the trial court's judgment denying her Motion for Contempt and Sanctions and finding Richard J. Craig not in contempt for failing to pay maintenance as ordered in the Decree of Dissolution. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was supported by substantial evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. Nance v. Nance, 880 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994) ; Henderson v. Henderson, 389 S.W.3d 260, 266 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). 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)

545 S.W.3d 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-v-lorna-l-house-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack