Larkin v. Eggen

Missouri Court of Appeals

Larkin v. Eggen

247 S.W.3d 616, 2008 WL 731439

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

DocketWD 67715

StatusPublished

This text of 247 S.W.3d 616 (Larkin v. Eggen) 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

Larkin v. Eggen, 247 S.W.3d 616, 2008 WL 731439 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*617 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Joseph Eggen (“Father”) appeals a judgment modifying his child support obligation. Ten years after her divorce from Father, Dianne Marie Larkin (“Mother”) sought additional child support from Father. The court found a substantial and continuing change of circumstances and increased Father’s child support obligation from $200 per month for each of their two children to $625 per month for both of the children plus one half of the costs associated with college tuition. Father now appeals, claiming the trial court erred in ordering him to pay for one half of any college expenses because it lacked sufficient evidence to support its judgment. Having carefully considered Father’s claims on appeal, we find no error in the trial court judgment. A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

*617 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Joseph Eggen (“Father”) appeals a judgment modifying his child support obligation. Ten years after her divorce from Father, Dianne Marie Larkin (“Mother”) sought additional child support from Father. The court found a substantial and continuing change of circumstances and increased Father’s child support obligation from $200 per month for each of their two children to $625 per month for both of the children plus one half of the costs associated with college tuition. Father now appeals, claiming the trial court erred in ordering him to pay for one half of any college expenses because it lacked sufficient evidence to support its judgment. Having carefully considered Father’s claims on appeal, we find no error in the trial court judgment. A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.W.3d 616, 2008 WL 731439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larkin-v-eggen-moctapp-2008.