In re the Marriage of Richardson

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re the Marriage of Richardson

789 S.W.2d 239, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 765, 1990 WL 63886

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 1990

DocketNo. 16375

StatusPublished

This text of 789 S.W.2d 239 (In re the Marriage of Richardson) 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 the Marriage of Richardson, 789 S.W.2d 239, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 765, 1990 WL 63886 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree dissolving the parties’ marriage. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in distribution of the parties’ marital property; in the amount of child support he was ordered to pay; and in ordering him to pay $2,000 of respondent’s attorney fees.

“The trial court has discretion in the division of marital property ... This is particularly true where one party has engaged in misconduct.” In re Marriage of Pew, 780 S.W.2d 687 (Mo.App.1989). The trial court also has discretion in awarding and setting child support. In re Marriage of Runez, 666 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Mo.App.1983); In re Marriage of Cook, 636 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Mo.App.1982). Likewise, the trial court is granted broad discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. King v. King, 762 S.W.2d 544, 547 (Mo.App.1989).

No abuse of discretion is present here. An examination of the record convinces us that no error of law appears, that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and it is not against the weight of the evidence. A further opinion would have no precedential value.

[240]*240The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

CROW, P.J., and PARRISH, J., concur.

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

PREWITT, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree dissolving the parties’ marriage. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in distribution of the parties’ marital property; in the amount of child support he was ordered to pay; and in ordering him to pay $2,000 of respondent’s attorney fees.

“The trial court has discretion in the division of marital property ... This is particularly true where one party has engaged in misconduct.” In re Marriage of Pew, 780 S.W.2d 687 (Mo.App.1989). The trial court also has discretion in awarding and setting child support. In re Marriage of Runez, 666 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Mo.App.1983); In re Marriage of Cook, 636 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Mo.App.1982). Likewise, the trial court is granted broad discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. King v. King, 762 S.W.2d 544, 547 (Mo.App.1989).

No abuse of discretion is present here. An examination of the record convinces us that no error of law appears, that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and it is not against the weight of the evidence. A further opinion would have no precedential value.

[240]*240The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

CROW, P.J., and PARRISH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 S.W.2d 239, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 765, 1990 WL 63886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-marriage-of-richardson-moctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack