Troutman v. Troutman

Missouri Court of Appeals

Troutman v. Troutman

128 S.W.3d 626, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 270, 2004 WL 377512

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 2, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82987

StatusPublished

This text of 128 S.W.3d 626 (Troutman v. Troutman) 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

Troutman v. Troutman, 128 S.W.3d 626, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 270, 2004 WL 377512 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mavis Troutman n/k/a Mavis Carlson (‘Wife”) appeals from a Judgment of Contempt and a Commitment Order entered for non-compliance with a Judgment Dividing Property and Debts Pursuant to Dissolution Action. Wife contends that the court erred in: (1) finding her in contempt; (2) stating legal conclusions instead of facts to support its Judgment of Contempt; and (3) failing to cite facts to support its Commitment Order.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no abuse of discretion. Kaelin v. Kaelin, 988 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the award 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.

Mavis Troutman n/k/a Mavis Carlson (‘Wife”) appeals from a Judgment of Contempt and a Commitment Order entered for non-compliance with a Judgment Dividing Property and Debts Pursuant to Dissolution Action. Wife contends that the court erred in: (1) finding her in contempt; (2) stating legal conclusions instead of facts to support its Judgment of Contempt; and (3) failing to cite facts to support its Commitment Order.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no abuse of discretion. Kaelin v. Kaelin, 988 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.W.3d 626, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 270, 2004 WL 377512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troutman-v-troutman-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack