Holifield v. Holifield

Missouri Court of Appeals

Holifield v. Holifield

103 S.W.3d 882, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 530, 2003 WL 1873584

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 15, 2003

DocketNos. ED 81229, ED 81230

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.W.3d 882 (Holifield v. Holifield) 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

Holifield v. Holifield, 103 S.W.3d 882, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 530, 2003 WL 1873584 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mother, Karen Marie Holifield, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to modify the decree of dissolution with regard to child support and her motion for contempt for the failure of father, Larry Noble Holifield, to pay child support in conformity with the decree. Father cross-appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash the child support enforcement order in which he sought a refund of monies collected by mother thereunder.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and find that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mother, Karen Marie Holifield, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to modify the decree of dissolution with regard to child support and her motion for contempt for the failure of father, Larry Noble Holifield, to pay child support in conformity with the decree. Father cross-appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash the child support enforcement order in which he sought a refund of monies collected by mother thereunder.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and find that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.W.3d 882, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 530, 2003 WL 1873584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holifield-v-holifield-moctapp-2003.