Laughlin v. Laughlin

Missouri Court of Appeals

Laughlin v. Laughlin

836 S.W.2d 98, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1472, 1992 WL 219198

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 15, 1992

DocketNo. 61315

StatusPublished

This text of 836 S.W.2d 98 (Laughlin v. Laughlin) 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

Laughlin v. Laughlin, 836 S.W.2d 98, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1472, 1992 WL 219198 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mother filed her motion to modify that part of a dissolution decree providing for child support of Mother’s and Father’s three children. The modification court increased child support from $525 per month to $750 per month. Mother appealed. She asserts that the court should have increased child support to $1107 per month and that any increase should have begun on the date of the filing of the decree. We find no abuse of the modification court’s discretion. See Wexelman v. Donnelly, 782 S.W.2d 72, 75[5] (Mo.App.1989). We must affirm the trial court’s judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Rule 84.16(b)(1). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties in this case a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our order.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mother filed her motion to modify that part of a dissolution decree providing for child support of Mother’s and Father’s three children. The modification court increased child support from $525 per month to $750 per month. Mother appealed. She asserts that the court should have increased child support to $1107 per month and that any increase should have begun on the date of the filing of the decree. We find no abuse of the modification court’s discretion. See Wexelman v. Donnelly, 782 S.W.2d 72, 75[5] (Mo.App.1989). We must affirm the trial court’s judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Rule 84.16(b)(1). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties in this case a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

836 S.W.2d 98, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1472, 1992 WL 219198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laughlin-v-laughlin-moctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack