Wlodarek v. Wlodarek

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wlodarek v. Wlodarek

190 S.W.3d 566, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 593, 2006 WL 1147666

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 86625

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 566 (Wlodarek v. Wlodarek) 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

Wlodarek v. Wlodarek, 190 S.W.3d 566, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 593, 2006 WL 1147666 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On 16 May 2005, Timothy J. Wlodarek, Jr. (Timothy) filed a Motion for Reimbursement of Child Support. His former spouse, Mary Lou Wlodarek (Mary Lou), filed a Motion to Dismiss, in which she asserted that, because Timothy failed to seek reimbursement when he filed his Affidavit for Termination of Child Support on 1 October 2004, his Motion for Reimbursement is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Circuit Court for St. Louis County, the Hon. Dennis N. Smith, sustained Mary Lou’s Motion to Dismiss; Timothy appeals. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(1).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On 16 May 2005, Timothy J. Wlodarek, Jr. (Timothy) filed a Motion for Reimbursement of Child Support. His former spouse, Mary Lou Wlodarek (Mary Lou), filed a Motion to Dismiss, in which she asserted that, because Timothy failed to seek reimbursement when he filed his Affidavit for Termination of Child Support on 1 October 2004, his Motion for Reimbursement is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Circuit Court for St. Louis County, the Hon. Dennis N. Smith, sustained Mary Lou’s Motion to Dismiss; Timothy appeals. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 566, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 593, 2006 WL 1147666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wlodarek-v-wlodarek-moctapp-2006.