Yao v. Yao

Missouri Court of Appeals

Yao v. Yao

523 S.W.3d 489, 2017 WL 1149638, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 222

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104105

StatusPublished

This text of 523 S.W.3d 489 (Yao v. Yao) 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

Yao v. Yao, 523 S.W.3d 489, 2017 WL 1149638, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

[490]*490 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Franck William Yao (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting Tamara R. Yao’s (“Mother”) Cross-Motion to Modify Judgment/Order (“Cross-Motion to Modify”), Amended Judgment/Order and Decree of Dissolution, which abrogated joint legal custody, awarded Mother sole legal custody, and ordered Father to pay a portion of Mother’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $15,000. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[490]*490 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Franck William Yao (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting Tamara R. Yao’s (“Mother”) Cross-Motion to Modify Judgment/Order (“Cross-Motion to Modify”), Amended Judgment/Order and Decree of Dissolution, which abrogated joint legal custody, awarded Mother sole legal custody, and ordered Father to pay a portion of Mother’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $15,000. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 S.W.3d 489, 2017 WL 1149638, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yao-v-yao-moctapp-2017.