Newman v. Newman

Missouri Court of Appeals

Newman v. Newman

236 S.W.3d 126, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1450, 2007 WL 3071807

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 23, 2007

DocketED 89336

StatusPublished

This text of 236 S.W.3d 126 (Newman v. Newman) 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

Newman v. Newman, 236 S.W.3d 126, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1450, 2007 WL 3071807 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tracey Newman appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Honorable John Essner presiding, after it denied her motion for contempt and attorneys fees. Kurt Newman (Husband) and Tracey Newman (Wife) divorced on 17 October 2003. As part of the divorce decree, Husband was to pay Wife’s health insurance premiums. Wife filed a motion for contempt on 24 March 2006, stating that Husband had failed to pay the premiums and Wife’s coverage lapsed as a result. The trial court found that Husband’s failure to pay was not willful and therefore denied Wife’s motion. This appeal follows.

Wife raises three points on appeal: 1) that the trial court erred in denying Wife’s motion for contempt because Husband did *127 not make the required showing that his failure to pay was not willful; 2) that the trial court applied the wrong burden of proof by requiring Wife to show Husband’s willfulness; and 3) that the trial court erred in denying Wife’s request for attorney’s fees.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been given a memorandum, for them information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tracey Newman appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Honorable John Essner presiding, after it denied her motion for contempt and attorneys fees. Kurt Newman (Husband) and Tracey Newman (Wife) divorced on 17 October 2003. As part of the divorce decree, Husband was to pay Wife’s health insurance premiums. Wife filed a motion for contempt on 24 March 2006, stating that Husband had failed to pay the premiums and Wife’s coverage lapsed as a result. The trial court found that Husband’s failure to pay was not willful and therefore denied Wife’s motion. This appeal follows.

Wife raises three points on appeal: 1) that the trial court erred in denying Wife’s motion for contempt because Husband did *127 not make the required showing that his failure to pay was not willful; 2) that the trial court applied the wrong burden of proof by requiring Wife to show Husband’s willfulness; and 3) that the trial court erred in denying Wife’s request for attorney’s fees.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been given a memorandum, for them information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.W.3d 126, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1450, 2007 WL 3071807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-newman-moctapp-2007.