Maurer v. Maurer

Missouri Court of Appeals

Maurer v. Maurer

471 S.W.3d 813, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1040, 2015 WL 5936375

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 13, 2015

DocketED 101129

StatusPublished

This text of 471 S.W.3d 813 (Maurer v. Maurer) 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

Maurer v. Maurer, 471 S.W.3d 813, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1040, 2015 WL 5936375 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Teresa Maurer (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment modifying a decree of dissolution of marriage (“Modification Judgment”), inter alia, transferring legal custody from Mother to Derek Maurer (“Father”), amending child support payable from Father to Mother, entering an order of attorneys’ fees in favor of Father, and denying a child order of protection.

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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[814]*814The 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Teresa Maurer (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment modifying a decree of dissolution of marriage (“Modification Judgment”), inter alia, transferring legal custody from Mother to Derek Maurer (“Father”), amending child support payable from Father to Mother, entering an order of attorneys’ fees in favor of Father, and denying a child order of protection.

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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[814]*814The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 S.W.3d 813, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1040, 2015 WL 5936375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurer-v-maurer-moctapp-2015.