Harris v. Harris

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harris v. Harris

390 S.W.3d 258, 2013 WL 326303, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 96

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 29, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98537

StatusPublished

This text of 390 S.W.3d 258 (Harris v. Harris) 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

Harris v. Harris, 390 S.W.3d 258, 2013 WL 326303, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 96 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Harris (“Father”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court that denied his motion to terminate child support, but partially abated child support. Father argues child support should be terminated and abated in full, beginning June 1, 2010, because (1) Child failed to complete nine credit hours during the Fall 2010 semester as required by Section 452.340.5 and (2) Child failed to comply with the notice requirements of Section 452.340.5.

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. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the [259]*259reasons 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.

Darrell Harris (“Father”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court that denied his motion to terminate child support, but partially abated child support. Father argues child support should be terminated and abated in full, beginning June 1, 2010, because (1) Child failed to complete nine credit hours during the Fall 2010 semester as required by Section 452.340.5 and (2) Child failed to comply with the notice requirements of Section 452.340.5.

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. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the [259]*259reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 S.W.3d 258, 2013 WL 326303, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-harris-moctapp-2013.