Williams v. Williams

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. Williams

233 S.W.3d 773, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1309, 2007 WL 2769505

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

DocketED 88994

StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.W.3d 773 (Williams v. Williams) 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

Williams v. Williams, 233 S.W.3d 773, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1309, 2007 WL 2769505 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lisl King Williams (Wife) appeals from the judgment entered on a Motion to Determine Amounts Due filed by Wendell N. Williams (Husband) which modified an earlier decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties. The trial court entered judgment against Wife on the following issues: amounts assessed as penalty and interest on tax year 2000 income taxes, amounts apportioned for tax year 2000 state and federal income taxes, and medical expenses related to the parties’ minor children. On appeal, Wife argues the trial court erred in (1) awarding Husband $18,746.43 as Wife’s share of taxes, penalties, and interest payable under the tax year 2000 income tax return, (2) ordering Wife to pay Husband a portion of the penalty for late filing of the tax year 2000 income tax returns, and (3) awarding Husband $3,160.14 in medical and hospitalization expenses not covered or paid by insurance. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Lisl King Williams (Wife) appeals from the judgment entered on a Motion to Determine Amounts Due filed by Wendell N. Williams (Husband) which modified an earlier decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties. The trial court entered judgment against Wife on the following issues: amounts assessed as penalty and interest on tax year 2000 income taxes, amounts apportioned for tax year 2000 state and federal income taxes, and medical expenses related to the parties’ minor children. On appeal, Wife argues the trial court erred in (1) awarding Husband $18,746.43 as Wife’s share of taxes, penalties, and interest payable under the tax year 2000 income tax return, (2) ordering Wife to pay Husband a portion of the penalty for late filing of the tax year 2000 income tax returns, and (3) awarding Husband $3,160.14 in medical and hospitalization expenses not covered or paid by insurance. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 773, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1309, 2007 WL 2769505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-williams-moctapp-2007.