In re Marriage of Davis

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re Marriage of Davis

560 S.W.2d 391, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2413

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 1977

DocketNo. 38430

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 560 S.W.2d 391 (In re Marriage of Davis) 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

In re Marriage of Davis, 560 S.W.2d 391, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2413 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

Petitioner appeals from the trial court’s award of child support in a dissolution of marriage suit. The trial court awarded petitioner $90 per month per child for the support of three children aged 18, 17, and 14 at the present time. In the year preceding the dissolution proceeding, petitioner had a gross income of $16,000; respondent’s net income for that year was $11,000. We find it unnecessary to set forth in detail the varying and disputed items of expense of each of the parties or their projections and estimates of the expense of the children. Our review of the record convinces us that the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not an abuse of discretion. See Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). We have also determined that an opinion would have no precedential value and affirm the judgment in accord with Rule 84.16(b).

Judgment affirmed.

CLEMENS, P. J., and MeMILLIAN, J., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

Petitioner appeals from the trial court’s award of child support in a dissolution of marriage suit. The trial court awarded petitioner $90 per month per child for the support of three children aged 18, 17, and 14 at the present time. In the year preceding the dissolution proceeding, petitioner had a gross income of $16,000; respondent’s net income for that year was $11,000. We find it unnecessary to set forth in detail the varying and disputed items of expense of each of the parties or their projections and estimates of the expense of the children. Our review of the record convinces us that the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not an abuse of discretion. See Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). We have also determined that an opinion would have no precedential value and affirm the judgment in accord with Rule 84.16(b).

Judgment affirmed.

CLEMENS, P. J., and MeMILLIAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 S.W.2d 391, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marriage-of-davis-moctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack