O'Leary v. O'Leary

Missouri Court of Appeals

O'Leary v. O'Leary

504 S.W.3d 69, 2016 WL 2894853, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 500

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2016

DocketED 103139

StatusPublished

This text of 504 S.W.3d 69 (O'Leary v. O'Leary) 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

O'Leary v. O'Leary, 504 S.W.3d 69, 2016 WL 2894853, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 500 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robyn Lynn O’Leary appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting Timothy Michael O’Leary’s motion to abate child support. She argues the trial court erred in finding she waived child support and maintenance, in denying her motions to dismiss and for contempt, and in finding the two children were emancipated. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. An extended [70]*70opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robyn Lynn O’Leary appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting Timothy Michael O’Leary’s motion to abate child support. She argues the trial court erred in finding she waived child support and maintenance, in denying her motions to dismiss and for contempt, and in finding the two children were emancipated. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. An extended [70]*70opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 S.W.3d 69, 2016 WL 2894853, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oleary-v-oleary-moctapp-2016.