Dunn v. Dunn

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dunn v. Dunn

80 S.W.3d 499, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1578, 2002 WL 1610958

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 23, 2002

DocketNo. ED 79159

StatusPublished

This text of 80 S.W.3d 499 (Dunn v. Dunn) 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

Dunn v. Dunn, 80 S.W.3d 499, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1578, 2002 WL 1610958 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

St. Charles County (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County ordering Appellant to pay the costs of the guardian ad litem, Henry Gerhardt, pursuant to his motion filed pursuant to Section 452.423 RSMo (2000). Further, the Circuit Court of St. Charles County issued a judgment against Tracey Dunn and Danny Holliday (hereinafter, “Respondents”) for the guardian ad litem fees. On appeal, Appellant contents that the trial court erred by ordering it to pay guardian ad litem fees when Respondents had adequate means to do so.

We have reviews the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of guardian ad litem fees. See Williams v. State, Dept of Social Services, Div. of Family Services, 978 S.W.2d 491 (Mo.App. S.D.1998) and Sweeten v. Watie, 842 S.W.2d 190 (Mo.App. E.D. 1992). An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

St. Charles County (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County ordering Appellant to pay the costs of the guardian ad litem, Henry Gerhardt, pursuant to his motion filed pursuant to Section 452.423 RSMo (2000). Further, the Circuit Court of St. Charles County issued a judgment against Tracey Dunn and Danny Holliday (hereinafter, “Respondents”) for the guardian ad litem fees. On appeal, Appellant contents that the trial court erred by ordering it to pay guardian ad litem fees when Respondents had adequate means to do so.

We have reviews the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of guardian ad litem fees. See Williams v. State, Dept of Social Services, Div. of Family Services, 978 S.W.2d 491 (Mo.App. S.D.1998) and Sweeten v. Watie, 842 S.W.2d 190 (Mo.App. E.D. 1992). An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.W.3d 499, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1578, 2002 WL 1610958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-dunn-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack