HOLLENBERG v. Derby

Missouri Court of Appeals

HOLLENBERG v. Derby

347 S.W.3d 181, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1103, 2011 WL 3808307

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

DocketED 95872

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 347 S.W.3d 181 (HOLLENBERG v. Derby) 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

HOLLENBERG v. Derby, 347 S.W.3d 181, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1103, 2011 WL 3808307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael J. Hollenberg (“Father”) appeals from the judgment denying his “Motion to Quash and for Recovery of Overpaid Child Support.” Father contends the circuit court erred in denying his motion to recover overpaid child support from Jayne E. Derby (“Mother”) because the child reached the age of twenty-one ending his obligation to pay child support at that time, and therefore, he was entitled to a reimbursement of child support payments made after the child turned twenty-one.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Mother’s motions to strike Father’s reply brief and for sanctions that were taken with the case are hereby denied.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael J. Hollenberg (“Father”) appeals from the judgment denying his “Motion to Quash and for Recovery of Overpaid Child Support.” Father contends the circuit court erred in denying his motion to recover overpaid child support from Jayne E. Derby (“Mother”) because the child reached the age of twenty-one ending his obligation to pay child support at that time, and therefore, he was entitled to a reimbursement of child support payments made after the child turned twenty-one.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Mother’s motions to strike Father’s reply brief and for sanctions that were taken with the case are hereby denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 181, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1103, 2011 WL 3808307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollenberg-v-derby-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack