Crouppen v. Crouppen

Missouri Court of Appeals

Crouppen v. Crouppen

261 S.W.3d 581, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 755, 2008 WL 2246896

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 2008

DocketED 89668

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 S.W.3d 581 (Crouppen v. Crouppen) 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

Crouppen v. Crouppen, 261 S.W.3d 581, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 755, 2008 WL 2246896 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terry Crouppen (“Husband”) appeals the judgment determining the amount of maintenance due to Carol Crouppen (“Wife”) for the year 2005 pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement which was incorporated into their prior dissolution judgment. We find that the trial court did not err in finding that the settlement agreement’s definition of adjusted gross income includes Subchapter S distributions that Husband receives from his employer, Brown & Crouppen. We also find that the trial court did not err in finding that the $392,569.00 in Shareholder S distributions that Husband received from Brown & Crouppen in 2005 was not a loan, but was part of Husband’s adjusted gross income for the purpose of determining the amount of maintenance he owed Wife for the year 2005.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terry Crouppen (“Husband”) appeals the judgment determining the amount of maintenance due to Carol Crouppen (“Wife”) for the year 2005 pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement which was incorporated into their prior dissolution judgment. We find that the trial court did not err in finding that the settlement agreement’s definition of adjusted gross income includes Subchapter S distributions that Husband receives from his employer, Brown & Crouppen. We also find that the trial court did not err in finding that the $392,569.00 in Shareholder S distributions that Husband received from Brown & Crouppen in 2005 was not a loan, but was part of Husband’s adjusted gross income for the purpose of determining the amount of maintenance he owed Wife for the year 2005.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 S.W.3d 581, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 755, 2008 WL 2246896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crouppen-v-crouppen-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack