Stoneking v. Stoneking

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stoneking v. Stoneking

227 S.W.3d 560, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1030, 2007 WL 1974950

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 2007

DocketWD 67449

StatusPublished

This text of 227 S.W.3d 560 (Stoneking v. Stoneking) 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

Stoneking v. Stoneking, 227 S.W.3d 560, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1030, 2007 WL 1974950 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William A. Stoneking, Jr. appeals the denial of his numerous motions relating to the child of his marriage to Shirley Ann Stoneking (now Shirley Anne Lincoln). Mr. Stoneking filed these motions after this court affirmed the trial court’s modification of the judgment dissolving his marriage to Mrs. Lincoln in which the trial court granted Mrs. Lincoln sole legal custody of their child. Mr. Stoneking currently appeals the trial court’s denial of: (1) expenses that he incurred for traveling to visit his child; (2) his motion to terminate child support; and (3) his motion to modify child custody. Mrs. Lincoln requests damages pursuant to Rule 84.19 for Mr. Stoneking’s allegedly frivolous appeal. The judgment is affirmed, and the motion for damages is denied. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William A. Stoneking, Jr. appeals the denial of his numerous motions relating to the child of his marriage to Shirley Ann Stoneking (now Shirley Anne Lincoln). Mr. Stoneking filed these motions after this court affirmed the trial court’s modification of the judgment dissolving his marriage to Mrs. Lincoln in which the trial court granted Mrs. Lincoln sole legal custody of their child. Mr. Stoneking currently appeals the trial court’s denial of: (1) expenses that he incurred for traveling to visit his child; (2) his motion to terminate child support; and (3) his motion to modify child custody. Mrs. Lincoln requests damages pursuant to Rule 84.19 for Mr. Stoneking’s allegedly frivolous appeal. The judgment is affirmed, and the motion for damages is denied. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 S.W.3d 560, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1030, 2007 WL 1974950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoneking-v-stoneking-moctapp-2007.