Nelson v. Nelson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nelson v. Nelson

139 S.W.3d 572, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 564, 2004 WL 834217

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 2004

DocketED 82342

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 S.W.3d 572 (Nelson v. Nelson) 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

Nelson v. Nelson, 139 S.W.3d 572, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 564, 2004 WL 834217 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The parties appeal the judgment modifying their dissolution decree. Kirk Nelson challenges the trial court’s refusal to modify maintenance, the modified child support order and the attorney fees award. Cheryl Nelson challenges child support and the allocation of education expenses.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. See Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have, however, been provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision in accordance with our local Rule 405. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The parties appeal the judgment modifying their dissolution decree. Kirk Nelson challenges the trial court’s refusal to modify maintenance, the modified child support order and the attorney fees award. Cheryl Nelson challenges child support and the allocation of education expenses.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. See Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have, however, been provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision in accordance with our local Rule 405. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.W.3d 572, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 564, 2004 WL 834217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-nelson-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack