Richter v. Richter

Missouri Court of Appeals

Richter v. Richter

275 S.W.3d 303, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1461, 2008 WL 4773428

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 4, 2008

DocketWD 68640

StatusPublished

This text of 275 S.W.3d 303 (Richter v. Richter) 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

Richter v. Richter, 275 S.W.3d 303, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1461, 2008 WL 4773428 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lisa Richter (Mother) appeals from a judgment declining to award sole physical custody to Mother or terminate child support payments to Daniel Richter (Father). On appeal, Mother argues that substantial evidence shows a substantial change in circumstances justifying an award of sole custody and that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find such change. She also argues that the court abused its discretion by not rebutting the presumed Form 14 amount for child support as unjust or inappropriate. Having carefully considered Mother’s contentions on appeal, we find no basis for reversing the decision of the trial court. A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lisa Richter (Mother) appeals from a judgment declining to award sole physical custody to Mother or terminate child support payments to Daniel Richter (Father). On appeal, Mother argues that substantial evidence shows a substantial change in circumstances justifying an award of sole custody and that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find such change. She also argues that the court abused its discretion by not rebutting the presumed Form 14 amount for child support as unjust or inappropriate. Having carefully considered Mother’s contentions on appeal, we find no basis for reversing the decision of the trial court. A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 S.W.3d 303, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1461, 2008 WL 4773428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richter-v-richter-moctapp-2008.