Lampe v. Lampe

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lampe v. Lampe

177 S.W.3d 846, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1528, 2005 WL 2746550

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

DocketED 84528, ED 85401

StatusPublished

This text of 177 S.W.3d 846 (Lampe v. Lampe) 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

Lampe v. Lampe, 177 S.W.3d 846, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1528, 2005 WL 2746550 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Anthony Lampe (“Husband”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granting in part and denying in part Husband’s “motion to modify decree of dissolution and motion to abate child support.” The court’s April 19, 2004 judgment declared that neither Husband nor Respondent, Lynn Lampe (“Wife”), should pay child support to the other, but ordered Husband to pay $2,000.00 of Wife’s attorney’s fees. The court also found that Husband failed to establish changed circumstances so substantial and continuous as to make the prior terms concerning maintenance to be paid to Wife unreasonable. Additionally, Husband appeals the trial court’s June 21, 2004 judgment ordering Husband to pay Wife’s attorney, Maia Brodie, the sum of $8,000.00 for Wife’s attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Anthony Lampe (“Husband”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granting in part and denying in part Husband’s “motion to modify decree of dissolution and motion to abate child support.” The court’s April 19, 2004 judgment declared that neither Husband nor Respondent, Lynn Lampe (“Wife”), should pay child support to the other, but ordered Husband to pay $2,000.00 of Wife’s attorney’s fees. The court also found that Husband failed to establish changed circumstances so substantial and continuous as to make the prior terms concerning maintenance to be paid to Wife unreasonable. Additionally, Husband appeals the trial court’s June 21, 2004 judgment ordering Husband to pay Wife’s attorney, Maia Brodie, the sum of $8,000.00 for Wife’s attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.W.3d 846, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1528, 2005 WL 2746550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lampe-v-lampe-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack