Sheppard v. Harris

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sheppard v. Harris

521 S.W.3d 290, 2017 WL 2644040, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 612

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104675

StatusPublished

This text of 521 S.W.3d 290 (Sheppard v. Harris) 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

Sheppard v. Harris, 521 S.W.3d 290, 2017 WL 2644040, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 612 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Darrell L. Harris (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his motion to modify the amount of maintenance he is required to pay to his ex-wife Avrias L. Sheppard (“Wife”). In Husband’s sole point on appeal, Husband contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to modify because Wife failed to present evidence to support that he could earn $70,000 per year—or any amount for that matter—or that he was deliberately not working, and Husband’s uncontroverted testimony was that he had been actively seeking work since 2014 but had been unable to find work. Finding no error of law, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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

Darrell L. Harris (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his motion to modify the amount of maintenance he is required to pay to his ex-wife Avrias L. Sheppard (“Wife”). In Husband’s sole point on appeal, Husband contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to modify because Wife failed to present evidence to support that he could earn $70,000 per year—or any amount for that matter—or that he was deliberately not working, and Husband’s uncontroverted testimony was that he had been actively seeking work since 2014 but had been unable to find work. Finding no error of law, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 S.W.3d 290, 2017 WL 2644040, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheppard-v-harris-moctapp-2017.