Williams v. Williams

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. Williams

500 S.W.3d 909, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 998, 2016 WL 5889007

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103278

StatusPublished

This text of 500 S.W.3d 909 (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, 500 S.W.3d 909, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 998, 2016 WL 5889007 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark S. Williams, Sr. (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Martha A. Williams, extending Father’s child support obligation past the eighteenth birthday of Mark S. Williams, Jr. (“Son”). Pursuant to section 452.340.4, RSMo. 2000,¹ the trial court held Son was not emancipated because he is unmarried, insolvent, and mentally incapacitated from supporting himself for the foreseeable future. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not clearly err in its judgment. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. 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 Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark S. Williams, Sr. (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Martha A. Williams, extending Father’s child support obligation past the eighteenth birthday of Mark S. Williams, Jr. (“Son”). Pursuant to section 452.340.4, RSMo. 2000,¹ the trial court held Son was not emancipated because he is unmarried, insolvent, and mentally incapacitated from supporting himself for the foreseeable future. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not clearly err in its judgment. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. 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 Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 S.W.3d 909, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 998, 2016 WL 5889007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-williams-moctapp-2016.