Waite v. Waite

Missouri Court of Appeals

Waite v. Waite

193 S.W.3d 783, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 758, 2006 WL 1474490

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 30, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86348

StatusPublished

This text of 193 S.W.3d 783 (Waite v. Waite) 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

Waite v. Waite, 193 S.W.3d 783, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 758, 2006 WL 1474490 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Louis Edward Waite, Jr. (Father) appeals from a trial court judgment denying his Motion to Modify a Decree of Dissolution. Father alleges trial court error in failing to reduce his child support obligation and in awarding attorney’s fees to Jane Kevin Waite (Mother). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment denying Father’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. Rustemeyer v. Rustemeyer, 148 S.W.3d 867, 870 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees to Mother. Bullard v. Briem, 969 S.W.2d 880, 884 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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.

Louis Edward Waite, Jr. (Father) appeals from a trial court judgment denying his Motion to Modify a Decree of Dissolution. Father alleges trial court error in failing to reduce his child support obligation and in awarding attorney’s fees to Jane Kevin Waite (Mother). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment denying Father’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. Rustemeyer v. Rustemeyer, 148 S.W.3d 867, 870 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees to Mother. Bullard v. Briem, 969 S.W.2d 880, 884 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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)

193 S.W.3d 783, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 758, 2006 WL 1474490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waite-v-waite-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack