Simmons v. Simmons

Missouri Court of Appeals

Simmons v. Simmons

350 S.W.3d 98, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1323, 2011 WL 4862956

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 2011

DocketED 96226

StatusPublished

This text of 350 S.W.3d 98 (Simmons v. Simmons) 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

Simmons v. Simmons, 350 S.W.3d 98, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1323, 2011 WL 4862956 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian K. Simmons (“Father”) appeals the judgment granting Theresa D. Simmons’ (“Mother”) motion to modify the parties’ dissolution judgment with respect to educational expenses, child support, and medical expenses. Father also appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to continue, the court’s award of attorney’s fees to Mother, and the court’s denial of Father’s post-trial motion.

We find the trial court’s judgment granting Mother’s motion to modify is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. We also find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion to continue or in awarding Mother attorney’s fees. Finally, we find the trial court did not err in denying Father’s post-trial motion.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian K. Simmons (“Father”) appeals the judgment granting Theresa D. Simmons’ (“Mother”) motion to modify the parties’ dissolution judgment with respect to educational expenses, child support, and medical expenses. Father also appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to continue, the court’s award of attorney’s fees to Mother, and the court’s denial of Father’s post-trial motion.

We find the trial court’s judgment granting Mother’s motion to modify is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. We also find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion to continue or in awarding Mother attorney’s fees. Finally, we find the trial court did not err in denying Father’s post-trial motion.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 S.W.3d 98, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1323, 2011 WL 4862956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-simmons-moctapp-2011.