Stanfill v. Stanfill

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stanfill v. Stanfill

505 S.W.2d 438, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1265

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 29, 1974

DocketNo. 35060

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 505 S.W.2d 438 (Stanfill v. Stanfill) 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

Stanfill v. Stanfill, 505 S.W.2d 438, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1265 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

WEIER, Judge.

Plaintiff Ona Easter Stanfill filed a motion to modify an order of the court for temporary custody, alimony and support. The motion was submitted to the court, and a part of the court order following submission stated: “Defendant ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorney $300.00 for attorney’s fees on account.” Defendant Trentis Lee Stanfill, on appeal, directs a two-pronged attack at this portion of the judgment. First, he contends that an allowance of attorney’s fees cannot be awarded to plaintiff’s attorney. This is correct. An allowance for support of the wife, suit money and attorney’s fees is in the nature of alimony. Such an allowance must be awarded to the wife, and no allowance can be made to her attorney because her attorney is not a party to the suit. Hogsett v. Hogsett, 409 S.W.2d 232, 234 [1-3] (Mo.App.1966).

Defendant’s second contention is directed to the plaintiff’s failure to meet her burden of proof that she had no means to pay her attorney’s fees. Contained in the transcript was a verified income and expense statement of Ona Easter Stanfill and her verified financial statement. This had been filed with the court on July 26, 1972. On September 6, 1972, at the time the motion was submitted to the court and the award of attorney’s fees made, no testimony was taken and no stipulation of counsel as to the admissibility of these verified statements was entered into by the attorneys for the parties. Absent a stipulation of the parties, there is no authority for treating affidavits as evidence. Eames v. Eames, 463 S.W.2d 576, 579 [2] (Mo.App.1971). Here there was no attempt to introduce the verified statements, and even if such an attempt had been made, they could have been rejected by the court as self-serving declarations since they were made by a party to the litigation in her own interest at a place and time out of court. Gibson v. Smith, 422 S.W.2d 321, 328 [9] (Mo.1968); Troyer v. Click, 457 S.W.2d 221, 222 [1], 223 [n. 3] (Mo.App.1970). And before any award of suit money and attorney’s fees in the prosecution of a motion to modify is allowed, there must [440]*440be evidence establishing the need of the wife to have expenses borne by the husband. McFadden v. McFadden, 477 S.W.2d 722, 725 [5] (Mo.App.1972).

Since there is no competent evidence to support it, the judgment is reversed.

SIMEONE, Acting P. J., and KELLY, J., concur.

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

WEIER, Judge.

Plaintiff Ona Easter Stanfill filed a motion to modify an order of the court for temporary custody, alimony and support. The motion was submitted to the court, and a part of the court order following submission stated: “Defendant ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorney $300.00 for attorney’s fees on account.” Defendant Trentis Lee Stanfill, on appeal, directs a two-pronged attack at this portion of the judgment. First, he contends that an allowance of attorney’s fees cannot be awarded to plaintiff’s attorney. This is correct. An allowance for support of the wife, suit money and attorney’s fees is in the nature of alimony. Such an allowance must be awarded to the wife, and no allowance can be made to her attorney because her attorney is not a party to the suit. Hogsett v. Hogsett, 409 S.W.2d 232, 234 [1-3] (Mo.App.1966).

Defendant’s second contention is directed to the plaintiff’s failure to meet her burden of proof that she had no means to pay her attorney’s fees. Contained in the transcript was a verified income and expense statement of Ona Easter Stanfill and her verified financial statement. This had been filed with the court on July 26, 1972. On September 6, 1972, at the time the motion was submitted to the court and the award of attorney’s fees made, no testimony was taken and no stipulation of counsel as to the admissibility of these verified statements was entered into by the attorneys for the parties. Absent a stipulation of the parties, there is no authority for treating affidavits as evidence. Eames v. Eames, 463 S.W.2d 576, 579 [2] (Mo.App.1971). Here there was no attempt to introduce the verified statements, and even if such an attempt had been made, they could have been rejected by the court as self-serving declarations since they were made by a party to the litigation in her own interest at a place and time out of court. Gibson v. Smith, 422 S.W.2d 321, 328 [9] (Mo.1968); Troyer v. Click, 457 S.W.2d 221, 222 [1], 223 [n. 3] (Mo.App.1970). And before any award of suit money and attorney’s fees in the prosecution of a motion to modify is allowed, there must [440]*440be evidence establishing the need of the wife to have expenses borne by the husband. McFadden v. McFadden, 477 S.W.2d 722, 725 [5] (Mo.App.1972).

Since there is no competent evidence to support it, the judgment is reversed.

SIMEONE, Acting P. J., and KELLY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 S.W.2d 438, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanfill-v-stanfill-moctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack