Porter v. Porter

Missouri Court of Appeals

Porter v. Porter

320 S.W.3d 738, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1257, 2010 WL 3681541

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 21, 2010

DocketED 94056

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 320 S.W.3d 738 (Porter v. Porter) 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

Porter v. Porter, 320 S.W.3d 738, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1257, 2010 WL 3681541 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darlene Angela Porter appeals from the trial court’s Judgment Modifying Child *739 Support, which lowered the amount of child support that Scott Porter (Father) had to pay on behalf of the minor child, and allowed Father continued use of tax exemptions for the minor child. 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 and does not erroneously declare the law, Hern v. Hern, 173 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Mo.App. E.D.2005), and is not an abuse of discretion, Spencer v. Spencer, 126 S.W.3d 770, 772 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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) (2010).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darlene Angela Porter appeals from the trial court’s Judgment Modifying Child *739 Support, which lowered the amount of child support that Scott Porter (Father) had to pay on behalf of the minor child, and allowed Father continued use of tax exemptions for the minor child. 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 and does not erroneously declare the law, Hern v. Hern, 173 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Mo.App. E.D.2005), and is not an abuse of discretion, Spencer v. Spencer, 126 S.W.3d 770, 772 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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) (2010).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 S.W.3d 738, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1257, 2010 WL 3681541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-porter-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack