Malle v. Malle

Missouri Court of Appeals

Malle v. Malle

476 S.W.3d 306, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1035, 2015 WL 5970662

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 13, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102224

StatusPublished

This text of 476 S.W.3d 306 (Malle v. Malle) 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

Malle v. Malle, 476 S.W.3d 306, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1035, 2015 WL 5970662 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appellant Samuel Malle (“Father”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting Respondent' Melissa Auxier’s (“Mother”) rhbtion allowing Mother to relocate the primary residence of the parties’ minor child (“Child”) from St. Louis County, Missouri to Tampa, Florida. On appeal, Father contends that the trial court erred, abused its discretion, and misapplied the law in its judgment. . Father argues that the proposed relocation was not in good faith and not in the best interest of Child.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The- judgment of the trial court 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

Appellant Samuel Malle (“Father”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting Respondent' Melissa Auxier’s (“Mother”) rhbtion allowing Mother to relocate the primary residence of the parties’ minor child (“Child”) from St. Louis County, Missouri to Tampa, Florida. On appeal, Father contends that the trial court erred, abused its discretion, and misapplied the law in its judgment. . Father argues that the proposed relocation was not in good faith and not in the best interest of Child.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The- judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance-with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 S.W.3d 306, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1035, 2015 WL 5970662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malle-v-malle-moctapp-2015.