Hoelzer v. Hoelzer

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hoelzer v. Hoelzer

614 S.W.2d 278, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2664

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1981

DocketNo. 42478

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 614 S.W.2d 278 (Hoelzer v. Hoelzer) 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

Hoelzer v. Hoelzer, 614 S.W.2d 278, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2664 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

REINHARD, Judge.

Husband appeals from an order of the circuit court modifying a dissolution decree.¹ The decree ordered transfer of the custody of their eighteen year old daughter from husband to wife. The court further awarded wife allowances in the total amount of $1,656.50, which included $1,515.00 in attorney’s fees. In his appeal, husband challenges both the order of transfer and the award of attorney’s fees.

A review of the record reveals that the court’s order is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Neither does it erroneously declare nor apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no preceden-tial value.

Accordingly, and in compliance with Rule 84.16(b), the judgment is affirmed.

CRIST, P. J., and DOWD, J., concur.

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

REINHARD, Judge.

Husband appeals from an order of the circuit court modifying a dissolution decree.¹ The decree ordered transfer of the custody of their eighteen year old daughter from husband to wife. The court further awarded wife allowances in the total amount of $1,656.50, which included $1,515.00 in attorney’s fees. In his appeal, husband challenges both the order of transfer and the award of attorney’s fees.

A review of the record reveals that the court’s order is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Neither does it erroneously declare nor apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no preceden-tial value.

Accordingly, and in compliance with Rule 84.16(b), the judgment is affirmed.

CRIST, P. J., and DOWD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 S.W.2d 278, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoelzer-v-hoelzer-moctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack