McKay v. McKay-Lloyd

Missouri Court of Appeals

McKay v. McKay-Lloyd

523 S.W.3d 537, 2017 WL 2117428, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 431

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 2017

DocketWD 79907

StatusPublished

This text of 523 S.W.3d 537 (McKay v. McKay-Lloyd) 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

McKay v. McKay-Lloyd, 523 S.W.3d 537, 2017 WL 2117428, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 431 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Robert McKay appeals a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, modifying his child support obligation from $300.00 per month to $221.00 per month. McKay argues that the trial court erroneously imputed minimum-wage income to him in determining the modified child support amount, despite a determination by the Family Support Division of the Department of Social Services to close a child support enforcement case against McKay based on its finding that he is permanently and totally disabled. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Robert McKay appeals a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, modifying his child support obligation from $300.00 per month to $221.00 per month. McKay argues that the trial court erroneously imputed minimum-wage income to him in determining the modified child support amount, despite a determination by the Family Support Division of the Department of Social Services to close a child support enforcement case against McKay based on its finding that he is permanently and totally disabled. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 S.W.3d 537, 2017 WL 2117428, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckay-v-mckay-lloyd-moctapp-2017.