Hartwein v. Hartwein

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hartwein v. Hartwein

362 S.W.3d 484, 2012 WL 941426, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 354

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 2012

DocketED 96543

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 362 S.W.3d 484 (Hartwein v. Hartwein) 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

Hartwein v. Hartwein, 362 S.W.3d 484, 2012 WL 941426, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 354 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ogerta H. Hartwein (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s dissolution judgment granting Kirk M. Hartwein (Father) sole legal and physical custody of the minor child, placing restrictions on the parties’ ability to travel outside the country with *485 the minor child, and ordering Mother to pay $18,000 of Father’s attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and does not erroneously declare the law, Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), and is not an abuse of discretion, Andrews v. Andrews, 344 S.W.3d 749, 749 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2011).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ogerta H. Hartwein (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s dissolution judgment granting Kirk M. Hartwein (Father) sole legal and physical custody of the minor child, placing restrictions on the parties’ ability to travel outside the country with *485 the minor child, and ordering Mother to pay $18,000 of Father’s attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and does not erroneously declare the law, Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), and is not an abuse of discretion, Andrews v. Andrews, 344 S.W.3d 749, 749 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2011).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 S.W.3d 484, 2012 WL 941426, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartwein-v-hartwein-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack