Patmore v. Patmore

Missouri Court of Appeals

Patmore v. Patmore

503 S.W.2d 76, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1087

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 3, 1973

DocketNo. KCD 26338

StatusPublished

This text of 503 S.W.2d 76 (Patmore v. Patmore) 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

Patmore v. Patmore, 503 S.W.2d 76, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1087 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

From the award of a divorce to Ruth Patmore in the circuit court of Johnson County, the husband-defendant appeals. He contends that his attorney erroneously waived his desire to contest the action, causing the court to overrule his motions for a continuance and an order to allow his presence at the trial. Because he is a prisoner in the federal penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, he contends he was denied due process of law.

This court need not reach appellant’s contention. A review of the record reveals that appellant’s attorney stated to the court that his client had advised him that he did not wish to contest the divorce. He also advised the court that appellant did not claim to be the father of respondent’s child or that he had adopted him. Such admissions are binding on the appellant. See Noel v. Roberts, 449 S.W.2d 572 (Mo.1970); Wenneker v. Frager, 448 S.W.2d 932 (Mo.App.1969); and Gibson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 147 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App.1941).

The action of the trial court, overruling appellant’s motions and awarding a divorce to Ruth Patmore, were not clearly erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

From the award of a divorce to Ruth Patmore in the circuit court of Johnson County, the husband-defendant appeals. He contends that his attorney erroneously waived his desire to contest the action, causing the court to overrule his motions for a continuance and an order to allow his presence at the trial. Because he is a prisoner in the federal penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, he contends he was denied due process of law.

This court need not reach appellant’s contention. A review of the record reveals that appellant’s attorney stated to the court that his client had advised him that he did not wish to contest the divorce. He also advised the court that appellant did not claim to be the father of respondent’s child or that he had adopted him. Such admissions are binding on the appellant. See Noel v. Roberts, 449 S.W.2d 572 (Mo.1970); Wenneker v. Frager, 448 S.W.2d 932 (Mo.App.1969); and Gibson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 147 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App.1941).

The action of the trial court, overruling appellant’s motions and awarding a divorce to Ruth Patmore, were not clearly erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 S.W.2d 76, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patmore-v-patmore-moctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack