Tiamiyu v. Tiamiyu

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tiamiyu v. Tiamiyu

505 S.W.3d 343, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1096, 2016 WL 6440401

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103853

StatusPublished

This text of 505 S.W.3d 343 (Tiamiyu v. Tiamiyu) 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

Tiamiyu v. Tiamiyu, 505 S.W.3d 343, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1096, 2016 WL 6440401 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Owolabi Tiamiyu appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his Motion to [344]*344Modify Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, Verified Motion to Terminate Child Support, Verified Supplemental Motion to Modify and to Terminate Child Support, and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and granting in part Omoladun Ajoke Tiamiyu’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, Kropf v. Jones, 489 S.W.3d 830, 834 (Mo.App. E.D. 2015), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees. Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte, 34 S.W.3d 387, 399 (Mo.banc 2001). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Owolabi Tiamiyu appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his Motion to [344]*344Modify Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, Verified Motion to Terminate Child Support, Verified Supplemental Motion to Modify and to Terminate Child Support, and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and granting in part Omoladun Ajoke Tiamiyu’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, Kropf v. Jones, 489 S.W.3d 830, 834 (Mo.App. E.D. 2015), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees. Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte, 34 S.W.3d 387, 399 (Mo.banc 2001). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 S.W.3d 343, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1096, 2016 WL 6440401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiamiyu-v-tiamiyu-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack