Day v. Day

Missouri Court of Appeals

Day v. Day

895 S.W.2d 676, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 734, 1995 WL 156025

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Day v. Day. Read the opinion of the Court — 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1369 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 11, 1995·No. No. WD 49591·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Billy Don Day appeals from an order modifying a decree of dissolution. He contends the trial court erred in calculating child support and ordering payment of a portion of his daughter’s college expenses. He also contends the court erred in ordering him to continue to provide health insurance coverage for the children and to pay the deductibles. Among other things, he contends that the departure from the Form 14 calculation violated Rule 88.01 in that the court did not specifically use the word “unjust” or “inappropriate” in its findings. Finally, he contends the court erred in the award of attorney’s fées to Mary Ellen Day.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Billy Don Day appeals from an order modifying a decree of dissolution. He contends the trial court erred in calculating child support and ordering payment of a portion of his daughter’s college expenses. He also contends the court erred in ordering him to continue to provide health insurance coverage for the children and to pay the deductibles. Among other things, he contends that the departure from the Form 14 calculation violated Rule 88.01 in that the court did not specifically use the word “unjust” or “inappropriate” in its findings. Finally, he contends the court erred in the award of attorney’s fées to Mary Ellen Day.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Day v. Day, 895 S.W.2d 676, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 734, 1995 WL 156025 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

895 S.W.2d 676 (Day v. Day) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.