Freund v. Freund

Missouri Court of Appeals

Freund v. Freund

266 S.W.3d 342, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1419, 2008 WL 4634448

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

DocketED 90650

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 S.W.3d 342 (Freund v. Freund) 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

Freund v. Freund, 266 S.W.3d 342, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1419, 2008 WL 4634448 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Freund (“Father”) appeals from the judgment denying his motion to modify child support payments and education obligations. Father contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify and finding he failed to demonstrate a substantial and continuing change in circumstance because the finding is against the weight of the evidence and is not supported by the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Freund (“Father”) appeals from the judgment denying his motion to modify child support payments and education obligations. Father contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify and finding he failed to demonstrate a substantial and continuing change in circumstance because the finding is against the weight of the evidence and is not supported by the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 S.W.3d 342, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1419, 2008 WL 4634448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freund-v-freund-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack