Konczal v. Konczal

Missouri Court of Appeals

Konczal v. Konczal

358 S.W.3d 559, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 145, 2012 WL 381591

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2012

DocketED 96423

StatusPublished

This text of 358 S.W.3d 559 (Konczal v. Konczal) 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

Konczal v. Konczal, 358 S.W.3d 559, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 145, 2012 WL 381591 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael M. Konczal (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s order and judgment of modification of child support. Father contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to emancipate his oldest daughter for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of providing Father the appropriate records of her college attendance or in the alternative the trial court erred in failing to abate his child support for the *560 periods of time when he did not receive documentation of her college attendance and grades. Father also argues the trial court erred in denying the aspect of his motion to modify dealing with the elimination of his obligation to pay half of the costs for private school.

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. However, 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael M. Konczal (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s order and judgment of modification of child support. Father contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to emancipate his oldest daughter for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of providing Father the appropriate records of her college attendance or in the alternative the trial court erred in failing to abate his child support for the *560 periods of time when he did not receive documentation of her college attendance and grades. Father also argues the trial court erred in denying the aspect of his motion to modify dealing with the elimination of his obligation to pay half of the costs for private school.

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. However, 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 S.W.3d 559, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 145, 2012 WL 381591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/konczal-v-konczal-moctapp-2012.