Johnston v. Johnston

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnston v. Johnston

539 S.W.3d 740

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 2017

DocketNo. ED 105188

StatusPublished

This text of 539 S.W.3d 740 (Johnston v. Johnston) 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

Johnston v. Johnston, 539 S.W.3d 740 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Roy R. Johnston, Jr. (Father) appeals from the trial court's October 13, 2016 Judgment and Order of Modification and Judgment for Contempt awarding Penny Johnston (Mother) sole legal custody of their child, R., and adjudging Father in contempt for repeatedly failing to comply with the court's past orders to have Mother's name removed from a debt incurred on a trailer awarded to Father in the 2008 dissolution of marriage judgment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's judgment is well within its discretion and is supported by substantial evidence. Morgan v. Morgan, 497 S.W.3d 359, 372 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) ; Davidson v. Fisher, 96 S.W.3d 160, 164 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Roy R. Johnston, Jr. (Father) appeals from the trial court's October 13, 2016 Judgment and Order of Modification and Judgment for Contempt awarding Penny Johnston (Mother) sole legal custody of their child, R., and adjudging Father in contempt for repeatedly failing to comply with the court's past orders to have Mother's name removed from a debt incurred on a trailer awarded to Father in the 2008 dissolution of marriage judgment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's judgment is well within its discretion and is supported by substantial evidence. Morgan v. Morgan, 497 S.W.3d 359, 372 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) ; Davidson v. Fisher, 96 S.W.3d 160, 164 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 S.W.3d 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnston-v-johnston-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack