HEFTER v. Wait

Missouri Court of Appeals

HEFTER v. Wait

306 S.W.3d 116, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 2010 WL 86162

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

DocketWD 70864

StatusPublished

This text of 306 S.W.3d 116 (HEFTER v. Wait) 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

HEFTER v. Wait, 306 S.W.3d 116, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 2010 WL 86162 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Selah Wait (Mother) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Macon County (trial court) granting sole legal and physical custody of her child, Abigail Heft-er (Abigail), to Abigail’s father, Uriah Hefter (Father) and ordering Mother to pay child support in the amount of $550 per month. This judgment came after the trial court struck Mother’s pleadings for failing to comply with numerous orders by the trial court. On appeal, Mother argues that striking her pleadings was an abuse of discretion. Mother further argues plain error in the trial court’s refusal to, sua sponte, recuse from the case; the trial court’s calculation of child support with outdated financial information (even though Mother refused to produce more current financial information in response to requests for that information); the trial court’s admission of testimony by the guardian ad litem (GAL) that was not objected to during the trial; and the trial court’s judgment allocating payment of the GAL’s fees to Mother. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Selah Wait (Mother) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Macon County (trial court) granting sole legal and physical custody of her child, Abigail Heft-er (Abigail), to Abigail’s father, Uriah Hefter (Father) and ordering Mother to pay child support in the amount of $550 per month. This judgment came after the trial court struck Mother’s pleadings for failing to comply with numerous orders by the trial court. On appeal, Mother argues that striking her pleadings was an abuse of discretion. Mother further argues plain error in the trial court’s refusal to, sua sponte, recuse from the case; the trial court’s calculation of child support with outdated financial information (even though Mother refused to produce more current financial information in response to requests for that information); the trial court’s admission of testimony by the guardian ad litem (GAL) that was not objected to during the trial; and the trial court’s judgment allocating payment of the GAL’s fees to Mother. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 S.W.3d 116, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 2010 WL 86162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hefter-v-wait-moctapp-2010.