Guiffrida v. Guiffrida

Missouri Court of Appeals

Guiffrida v. Guiffrida

219 S.W.3d 787, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 609, 2007 WL 1120291

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 2007

DocketED 87830

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 S.W.3d 787 (Guiffrida v. Guiffrida) 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

Guiffrida v. Guiffrida, 219 S.W.3d 787, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 609, 2007 WL 1120291 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Peter Joseph Guiffrida (“Father”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, increasing his child support obligation. Father contends that the trial court erred in failing to: (1) adjust his monthly gross income as a result of his subsequently born child; and (2) credit him for additional child-rearing costs consisting of health insurance premiums. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Peter Joseph Guiffrida (“Father”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, increasing his child support obligation. Father contends that the trial court erred in failing to: (1) adjust his monthly gross income as a result of his subsequently born child; and (2) credit him for additional child-rearing costs consisting of health insurance premiums. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.W.3d 787, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 609, 2007 WL 1120291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guiffrida-v-guiffrida-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack