Seelbach v. Seelbach

Missouri Court of Appeals

Seelbach v. Seelbach

157 S.W.3d 761, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 374, 2005 WL 589610

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2005

DocketED 84109

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.W.3d 761 (Seelbach v. Seelbach) 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

Seelbach v. Seelbach, 157 S.W.3d 761, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 374, 2005 WL 589610 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Charles Seelbach (“father”) appeals the judgment of the trial court modifying a decree of dissolution. Father claims the trial court erred in modifying custody because there was insufficient evidence of a substantial change of circum *762 stances and such modification was not necessary for the welfare of the minor children. Additionally, father asserts error in the trial court’s award to Sharon Marie Seelbach (“mother”) of amounts for back child support, his portion of medical and dental bills for the minor children, a portion of her attorney’s fees, and a portion of the guardian ad litem fee. Father also argues that the trial court incorrectly credited mother with the amount of income she earned at the time of the dissolution in its Form 14 calculation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Charles Seelbach (“father”) appeals the judgment of the trial court modifying a decree of dissolution. Father claims the trial court erred in modifying custody because there was insufficient evidence of a substantial change of circum *762 stances and such modification was not necessary for the welfare of the minor children. Additionally, father asserts error in the trial court’s award to Sharon Marie Seelbach (“mother”) of amounts for back child support, his portion of medical and dental bills for the minor children, a portion of her attorney’s fees, and a portion of the guardian ad litem fee. Father also argues that the trial court incorrectly credited mother with the amount of income she earned at the time of the dissolution in its Form 14 calculation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 761, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 374, 2005 WL 589610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seelbach-v-seelbach-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack