Hofstetter v. Hofstetter

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hofstetter v. Hofstetter

266 S.W.3d 330, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1404, 2008 WL 4553067

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 14, 2008

DocketED 90586

StatusPublished

This text of 266 S.W.3d 330 (Hofstetter v. Hofstetter) 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

Hofstetter v. Hofstetter, 266 S.W.3d 330, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1404, 2008 WL 4553067 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clayton Hofstetter (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting Erin Hofstetter’s (“Mother”) motion to modify child support and ordering him to pay a portion of Mother’s attorney fees. We find that the trial court did not err in increasing the amount of child support Father is obligated to pay Mother from $150.00 per week to $185.00 per week. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Father to pay $1,600.00 of Mother’s attorney’s fees.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum set *331 ting forth the reasons for our decision. The trial court’s decision is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clayton Hofstetter (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting Erin Hofstetter’s (“Mother”) motion to modify child support and ordering him to pay a portion of Mother’s attorney fees. We find that the trial court did not err in increasing the amount of child support Father is obligated to pay Mother from $150.00 per week to $185.00 per week. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Father to pay $1,600.00 of Mother’s attorney’s fees.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum set *331 ting forth the reasons for our decision. The trial court’s decision is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 S.W.3d 330, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1404, 2008 WL 4553067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hofstetter-v-hofstetter-moctapp-2008.