Middaugh v. Moore

Missouri Court of Appeals

Middaugh v. Moore

278 S.W.3d 250, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 335, 2009 WL 685603

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 2009

DocketED 91574

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 S.W.3d 250 (Middaugh v. Moore) 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

Middaugh v. Moore, 278 S.W.3d 250, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 335, 2009 WL 685603 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patricia F. Moore Middaugh appeals from the trial court’s Findings of Fact, *251 Conclusions of Law, and Judgment (judgment) granting Alan A. Moore’s Petition to Modify Judgment and Decree of Dissolution as to Child Custody, Visitation, Support, Child Tax Deduction and College Expense Contribution.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm 1 the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Father’s Motion to Strike the appendix attached to Mother's Reply Brief is granted.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patricia F. Moore Middaugh appeals from the trial court’s Findings of Fact, *251 Conclusions of Law, and Judgment (judgment) granting Alan A. Moore’s Petition to Modify Judgment and Decree of Dissolution as to Child Custody, Visitation, Support, Child Tax Deduction and College Expense Contribution.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm 1 the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Father’s Motion to Strike the appendix attached to Mother's Reply Brief is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W.3d 250, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 335, 2009 WL 685603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middaugh-v-moore-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack