{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"divorce","label":"Divorce","description":null,"totalCases":118,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":8},{"year":2019,"count":19},{"year":2020,"count":16},{"year":2021,"count":17},{"year":2022,"count":13},{"year":2023,"count":9},{"year":2024,"count":12},{"year":2025,"count":17},{"year":2026,"count":7}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87485:2026-02-24","opinionId":"53f50252-917c-5803-bde2-1ddc31e44d0a","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-stacey-l-noble-v-bradford-r-noble-d87485","caseName":"In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble\nvs. \nBradford R. Noble","caseNumber":"WD87485","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Stacey L. Noble appealed the trial court's amended judgment dissolving her marriage to Bradford R. Noble, challenging the denial of maintenance and an alleged judicial impropriety. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found no judicial impropriety in the trial court's use of an online calculator for judicially noticeable tax rates. The court also affirmed the denial of maintenance, concluding that Husband lacked the ability to pay regardless of the income calculation method, and that maintenance is not mandatory if the paying spouse cannot afford it.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231274","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-stacey-l-noble-v-bradford-r-noble-d87485","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87819:2025-12-09","opinionId":"29e6a29c-db34-51af-9ed4-701248304378","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-james-a-starke-v-deborah-s-starke-d87819","caseName":"In RE the Marriage of: James A. Starke\nvs.\nDeborah S. Starke","caseNumber":"WD87819","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deborah S. Starke (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to James A. Starke (Husband), specifically challenging the order to convey marital real estate to a third-party trust. The Wife contended that the trial court erred by ordering the conveyance of marital property to a non-party to the dissolution action, which violates Missouri law. The appellate court agreed, reversing the judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228275","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-james-a-starke-v-deborah-s-starke-d87819","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87315:2025-12-02","opinionId":"df04912a-d16b-5bc7-b549-3c5d5ef3d61b","slug":"randa-m-techtow-v-jesse-t-techtow-d87315","caseName":"Randa M. Techtow\nvs.\nJesse T. Techtow","caseNumber":"WD87315","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Randa Techtow filed for dissolution of marriage, and a default judgment was entered against Jesse Techtow after he failed to respond. Jesse Techtow subsequently filed motions to set aside the default judgment, arguing good cause for his failure to respond and intrinsic fraud by Randa regarding marital property. The trial court denied these motions. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions or in excluding certain evidence.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/randa-m-techtow-v-jesse-t-techtow-d87315","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113129:2025-11-25","opinionId":"478a621b-29d7-5577-bc30-99f4bd038c26","slug":"matthew-j-callow-respondent-v-danielle-n-callow-appellant-113129","caseName":"Matthew J. Callow, Respondent, v. Danielle N. Callow, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113129","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Danielle Callow (Mother) appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Matthew Callow (Father). Mother challenged the denial of maintenance, the child support calculation, the division of marital property and uninsured medical bills, and the denial of her motion for newly discovered evidence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment on all points, finding no abuse of discretion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227780","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-j-callow-respondent-v-danielle-n-callow-appellant-113129","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112945:2025-08-26","opinionId":"748f40cf-c118-51aa-91e9-fc7b69e5d111","slug":"donna-j-scalise-respondent-v-william-j-scalise-appellant-112945","caseName":"Donna J. Scalise, Respondent, vs. William J. Scalise, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112945","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"William J. Scalise appealed a contempt order finding him in violation of his maintenance obligations to Donna J. Scalise, stemming from their dissolution judgment. The appellate court questioned whether the appeal was from a final, appealable judgment, and Husband subsequently filed a document purporting to certify findings under Rule 74.01(b). The court dismissed the appeal, holding that neither the initial contempt order nor the subsequent certification attempt constituted a final, appealable judgment under Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223935","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donna-j-scalise-respondent-v-william-j-scalise-appellant-112945","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112738:2025-07-15","opinionId":"da1387ab-6436-5064-abee-4f6adb89aae9","slug":"matthew-j-weiss-respondent-v-mary-d-weiss-appellant-112738","caseName":"Matthew J. Weiss, Respondent, vs. Mary D. Weiss, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112738","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary D. Weiss (Wife) appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside a consent judgment of dissolution of marriage to Matthew J. Weiss (Husband). Wife argued the judgment was not entered into freely and voluntarily due to duress, and challenged the appointment of a Special Master, the timing of the judgment, and the award of attorneys' fees to Husband. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying Wife's motions and concluding that some of her points on appeal were moot or not properly before the court.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222196","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-j-weiss-respondent-v-mary-d-weiss-appellant-112738","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112557:2025-06-27","opinionId":"b11bc7c3-c3b0-5d6d-9987-41a24f3e31cf","slug":"joy-janelle-mcvean-respondent-v-anthony-david-mcvean-appellant-112557","caseName":"Joy Janelle McVean, Respondent, vs. Anthony David McVean, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112557","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Anthony David McVean appealed the judgment dissolving his marriage to Joy Janelle McVean, challenging the trial court's imputation of income, awards of maintenance and child support, and division of marital property. Husband argued the court erred in imputing income after he voluntarily quit his job, and that the support awards were beyond his ability to pay. He also claimed the property division was disproportionate. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the challenged rulings.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joy-janelle-mcvean-respondent-v-anthony-david-mcvean-appellant-112557","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112742:2025-03-11","opinionId":"66bb86ed-ea7e-5046-b839-b4537943e181","slug":"linda-j-tierney-appellant-v-lawrence-j-tierney-respondent-112742","caseName":"Linda J. Tierney, Appellant, v. Lawrence J. Tierney, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112742","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Linda Tierney appealed a contempt judgment issued against her for failing to comply with a dissolution of marriage judgment, which also amended the original judgment by reallocating property sale proceeds. The appellate court first concluded the appeal was not moot. It then reversed and remanded the contempt judgment, holding that it failed to recite the facts constituting contempt and improperly amended the dissolution judgment in violation of the separation agreement and statute. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to hear a video used to refresh recollection, finding no reversible error.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","divorce","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218337","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/linda-j-tierney-appellant-v-lawrence-j-tierney-respondent-112742","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112335:2025-03-04","opinionId":"89ac8160-570b-5197-ac27-e9b05fb2a418","slug":"melissa-m-carter-respondent-v-drew-b-carter-appellant-112335","caseName":"Melissa M. Carter, Respondent, vs. Drew B. Carter, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112335","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Drew B. Carter (Husband) appealed the dissolution of marriage judgment, challenging the calculation of spousal maintenance, imputation of his income for child support, the order to pay private school tuition, and the characterization of a trust account as marital property. The appellate court reversed the trial court's calculation of Wife's net income for maintenance, agreeing that it was incorrectly reduced by itemized deductions and a child tax credit. However, the court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding Husband's imputed income, the private school tuition order, and the classification of the trust account as marital property. The case was remanded for recalculation of maintenance and child support consistent with the corrected income.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218056","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-m-carter-respondent-v-drew-b-carter-appellant-112335","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38517:2025-02-24","opinionId":"30c35966-8595-5c26-8623-3eff453f8da9","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-brian-flood-and-holly-jessica-flood-brian-flood-res-d38517","caseName":"IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRIAN FLOOD and HOLLY JESSICA FLOOD, \nBRIAN FLOOD, Respondent\nv.\nHOLLY JESSICA FLOOD, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38517","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Holly Jessica Flood (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Respondent Brian Flood (Husband), raising four points on appeal concerning marital property, debt, child support, and child custody. The appellate court dismissed Wife's appeal, finding that each of her points relied on violated Rule 84.04(d) by combining multiple allegations of error and failing to explain why the legal reasons supported the challenge in the context of the case. Consequently, the court held that Wife's points preserved nothing for appellate review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","divorce","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-brian-flood-and-holly-jessica-flood-brian-flood-res-d38517","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112606:2025-02-18","opinionId":"9ca20ffa-e2d0-5934-8f60-8f93f808ee97","slug":"john-r-mennerich-respondent-v-patricia-s-mennerich-appellant-112606","caseName":"John R. Mennerich, Respondent, vs. Patricia S. Mennerich, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112606","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Roberta Peasel, as guardian for Patricia S. Mennerich (Wife), appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving Wife's marriage to John R. Mennerich (Husband). Wife challenged the settlement agreement, the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL), and the GAL's performance. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Wife failed to preserve her claims for appeal because she did not object at trial or file a Rule 78.07 after-trial motion, and the issues were not previously presented to the circuit court.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217576","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-r-mennerich-respondent-v-patricia-s-mennerich-appellant-112606","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111927:2024-12-24","opinionId":"bab1b882-3582-5120-ab12-7d72057b275c","slug":"aylicia-d-mickow-appellant-v-cody-f-mickow-respondent-111927","caseName":"Aylicia D. Mickow, Appellant, vs. Cody F. Mickow, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111927","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Aylicia Mickow (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Cody Mickow (Husband), challenging the joint legal and physical custody order for their two minor children and the valuation of two marital properties. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court adequately addressed all relevant best-interest-of-the-child factors and that the custody order was not against the weight of the evidence. Additionally, the court found the property valuations were supported by the record and within the trial court's discretion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/aylicia-d-mickow-appellant-v-cody-f-mickow-respondent-111927","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111942:2024-11-19","opinionId":"b782bf42-1ba9-5270-924c-2dfc562f03bc","slug":"carolyn-northup-respondent-v-bradley-j-bakula-personal-representative-of-111942","caseName":"Carolyn Northup, Respondent, vs. Bradley J. Bakula, Personal Representative of the Estate of Byrle Northup, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111942","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Bradley J. Bakula, Personal Representative of the Estate of Byrle Northup (Husband), appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Carolyn Northup (Wife), challenging rulings on temporary maintenance, marital debt allocation, and attorney's fees. Husband died during the appeal, but the court retained jurisdiction after substitution of parties. The appellate court dismissed Husband's appeal for failure to comply with Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04's appellate briefing requirements, finding his points relied on multifarious and his brief deficient in other aspects.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214636","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carolyn-northup-respondent-v-bradley-j-bakula-personal-representative-of-111942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112428:2024-11-05","opinionId":"e1a3baa2-657f-582f-8fd5-418d31eeeb8d","slug":"francis-wolo-respondent-v-christina-wolo-appellant-112428","caseName":"Francis Wolo, Respondent, vs. Christina Wolo, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112428","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"In a marriage dissolution case, a default judgment was entered against Christina Wolo (Wife) after she failed to respond to Francis Wolo's (Husband) petition. Wife later filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, claiming it was void due to defective service of process. The trial court denied her motion. The Eastern District affirmed, holding that Wife was estopped from challenging the service of process because she had previously filed and litigated a motion to modify the judgment without raising any issues regarding service or jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","family-law","divorce","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214276","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/francis-wolo-respondent-v-christina-wolo-appellant-112428","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37929:2024-07-17","opinionId":"b9630bc3-bb08-5e55-8159-52eb9cff1d0d","slug":"leroy-f-gilbert-respondent-v-andrea-d-chrismer-still-appellant-d37929","caseName":"LEROY F. GILBERT, Respondent\nv.\nANDREA D. CHRISMER-STILL, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37929","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Leroy Gilbert filed for dissolution of his marriage to Andrea Chrismer-Still. The trial court valued a marital savings account at its initial higher value, finding Appellant squandered funds, and ordered her to pay Respondent to equalize the marital estate. Appellant appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied the law regarding the burden to account for diminished funds and erred in finding squandering without direct evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly applied the law, Appellant failed to provide a credible accounting, and her challenge to a single asset's valuation was insufficient without challenging the overall property division.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/leroy-f-gilbert-respondent-v-andrea-d-chrismer-still-appellant-d37929","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111233:2024-05-28","opinionId":"5570242f-7417-511d-a27d-ffa739cfadca","slug":"carol-cullen-respondentcross-appellant-v-robert-bernstein-appellant-111233","caseName":"Carol Cullen, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Robert Bernstein, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111233","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert H. Bernstein appealed and Carol A. Cullen cross-appealed from a judgment modifying Bernstein's maintenance obligation from $10,000 to $5,000 per month and ordering Cullen to pay $25,000 of Bernstein's attorney fees. Bernstein sought to terminate or reduce maintenance, alleging substantial changes in Cullen's circumstances, including her failure to seek employment, increased assets, and a relationship substituting for marriage. The appellate court reversed the modification judgment, finding Bernstein failed to meet his statutory burden to prove a substantial and continuing change in circumstances, and reinstated the original $10,000 per month maintenance award.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carol-cullen-respondentcross-appellant-v-robert-bernstein-appellant-111233","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86502:2024-05-28","opinionId":"25d8292b-2abf-5967-a31f-8843e6e91f09","slug":"shawn-bitters-v-darryl-olive-d86502","caseName":"Shawn Bitters\nvs.\nDarryl Olive","caseNumber":"WD86502","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Darryl Olive appealed the dissolution of his marriage to Shawn Bitters, challenging the trial court's decision to grant his counsel's motion to withdraw, the award of attorney's fees to Bitters, and the denial of maintenance to Olive. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to allow counsel to withdraw and the award of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion or lack of substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the denial of maintenance, concluding that the trial court's finding that Olive had not requested maintenance was unsupported by substantial evidence, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208379","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shawn-bitters-v-darryl-olive-d86502","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38026:2024-05-06","opinionId":"36d62536-7ba8-500c-8c2a-d91f65188ff6","slug":"christopher-j-gardner-appellant-v-cathy-j-gardner-respondent-d38026","caseName":"CHRISTOPHER J. GARDNER, Appellant\nv.\nCATHY J. GARDNER, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38026","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-06","year":2024,"display_summary":"Christopher J. Gardner (Husband) appealed from an amended judgment dissolving his marriage to Cathy Jo Gardner (Wife), challenging the child support order, the valuation of his business, and the exclusion of certain debts. Husband filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial based on his oldest child's emancipation and to reopen evidence regarding the emancipation and two SBA loans, which were denied. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Husband's seven points on appeal, including the denial of his post-trial motions and the valuation of marital property and debt.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","child-custody","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-j-gardner-appellant-v-cathy-j-gardner-respondent-d38026","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111391:2024-03-05","opinionId":"5173ef82-3dae-5509-93c6-854355d42a06","slug":"katey-l-gipson-respondent-v-joseph-l-gipson-appellant-111391","caseName":"Katey L. Gipson, Respondent, vs. Joseph L. Gipson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111391","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Joseph L. Gipson appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Katey L. Gipson, challenging the division of marital assets and debts, and the denial of child support. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings regarding the designation of marital debt and the denial of child support. However, the court reversed the marital property division, finding it inequitable, and exercised its authority to amend the judgment by reducing Husband's equalization payment.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","child-custody","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/katey-l-gipson-respondent-v-joseph-l-gipson-appellant-111391","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111742:2024-02-27","opinionId":"80654b5d-c5c9-5c1a-9d85-af563ac7a789","slug":"jeffrey-a-greene-respondent-v-melissa-a-greene-appellant-111742","caseName":"Jeffrey A. Greene, Respondent, v. Melissa A. Greene, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111742","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Melissa A. Greene appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Jeffrey A. Greene. She argued the court failed to distribute all marital property, specifically income tax refunds, and failed to include a complete parenting plan. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the wife failed to preserve the issue of tax refunds for review by not presenting it to the circuit court. The court also found the parenting plan issue moot because the youngest child had reached the age of eighteen, making a plan no longer statutorily required.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205838","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeffrey-a-greene-respondent-v-melissa-a-greene-appellant-111742","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111716:2024-02-27","opinionId":"d2e31ced-f2fd-5f10-82f1-8f58c860e7b4","slug":"kristen-l-main-respondent-v-donet-c-main-appellant-and-ethan-main-interve-111716","caseName":"Kristen L. Main, Respondent, vs. Donet C. Main, Appellant, and Ethan Main, Intervenor.","caseNumber":"ED111716","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Donet C. Main (Husband) appealed the circuit court's judgment denying his motion to terminate nonmodifiable maintenance to Kristen L. Main (Wife), arguing her relationship with a partner constituted a substitute for marriage. Husband also challenged the denial of his motion to compel discovery of bank records and an order to pay a portion of Wife's attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in the application of law regarding maintenance termination, no abuse of discretion in the discovery ruling, and no abuse of discretion in the attorney's fee award.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205837","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kristen-l-main-respondent-v-donet-c-main-appellant-and-ethan-main-interve-111716","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37807:2023-09-12","opinionId":"ecfff7af-b83c-5d55-9030-328c73de61a8","slug":"jane-e-zamora-petitioner-appellant-v-hugo-e-zamora-respondent-respondent-d37807","caseName":"JANE E. ZAMORA, Petitioner-Appellant\nv.\nHUGO E. ZAMORA, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37807","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jane Zamora appealed the trial court's judgment in her dissolution of marriage action, challenging the classification of two real properties as marital property. Jane argued that the properties were excluded by written agreement or gifted to her by Hugo, her former husband. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Jane failed to overcome the presumption that the properties, acquired during the marriage, were marital property. The court concluded that the acknowledgements signed by Hugo did not constitute a valid written agreement to exclude the properties from marital property nor did they evidence a gift.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jane-e-zamora-petitioner-appellant-v-hugo-e-zamora-respondent-respondent-d37807","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111310:2023-08-15","opinionId":"ea2c4dab-ce0f-56dc-8474-b8161ce6df14","slug":"sophia-d-chatman-appellant-v-thomas-chatman-respondent-111310","caseName":"Sophia D. Chatman, Appellant, v. Thomas Chatman, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111310","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-15","year":2023,"display_summary":"Sophia D. Chatman appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Thomas Chatman, which incorporated a property settlement agreement the parties had consented to. Wife raised issues regarding the division of marital property, arguing the court erred in approving the judgment and not considering certain factors. The Eastern District dismissed the appeal, holding that a party lacks statutory authority to appeal a judgment entered by consent of the parties, as such a party is not \"aggrieved\" under Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","divorce","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198496","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sophia-d-chatman-appellant-v-thomas-chatman-respondent-111310","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110866:2023-06-13","opinionId":"c5c74723-953b-57d8-9525-d4787e4cf17a","slug":"nicole-e-williams-respondent-v-bryan-l-williams-appellant-110866","caseName":"Nicole E. Williams, Respondent, vs. Bryan L. Williams, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110866","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-13","year":2023,"display_summary":"Bryan Williams (Husband) appealed from a dissolution judgment and the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment, which was denied by operation of law. The appellate court dismissed Husband's third point on appeal for failing to comply with Rule 84.04's briefing requirements, including the proper formulation of a point relied on and an adequate statement of facts. The court denied Husband's remaining four points, finding they were not preserved for appellate review due to his failure to appear at trial or properly raise the issues in a post-trial motion. Consequently, the amended dissolution judgment was affirmed.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","divorce","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196598","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nicole-e-williams-respondent-v-bryan-l-williams-appellant-110866","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110511:2023-06-06","opinionId":"51816f53-f698-51d4-9f8d-270c822448ac","slug":"leslie-e-cheek-petitioner-respondent-v-kevin-r-cheek-respondent-appellant-110511","caseName":"Leslie E. Cheek, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Kevin R. Cheek, Respondent-Appellant, v. Kaleb Cheek, Third-Party Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110511","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kevin Cheek appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Leslie Cheek, specifically challenging the division of marital property. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's award of a real estate commission to Wife, finding it contrary to the parties' consent agreement and Wife's waiver. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment on Husband's remaining three points of error regarding other marital property calculations and characterizations. The case was remanded for recalculation of amounts owed without the real estate commission.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","contracts","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196276","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/leslie-e-cheek-petitioner-respondent-v-kevin-r-cheek-respondent-appellant-110511","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37620:2023-05-22","opinionId":"30f48a9c-3b26-51b4-8a0e-f9caf1f49148","slug":"tammy-kay-campbell-respondent-v-timothy-campbell-appellant-d37620","caseName":"TAMMY KAY CAMPBELL, Respondent\nvs.\nTIMOTHY CAMPBELL, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37620","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-22","year":2023,"display_summary":"Timothy Campbell appealed the denial of his motion to terminate maintenance payments to Tammy Campbell, arguing that her remarriage statutorily terminated the obligation. The circuit court had found an implied agreement to continue maintenance despite remarriage. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's judgment regarding future maintenance payments, holding that the property settlement agreement did not implicitly rebut the statutory presumption of termination upon remarriage. However, the court also found that Husband had waived his right to appeal past voluntary payments made after Wife's remarriage.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195753","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tammy-kay-campbell-respondent-v-timothy-campbell-appellant-d37620","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85210:2023-04-18","opinionId":"b8970ee1-e3d9-5e01-9c5c-24fece97358e","slug":"angela-christine-wilson-v-christopher-darnell-wilson-d85210","caseName":"Angela Christine Wilson\nvs.\nChristopher Darnell Wilson","caseNumber":"WD85210","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-04-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Husband appealed a default judgment dissolving his marriage and denying his motion to set it aside, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution of the marriage and the restoration of Wife's maiden name, as these were in rem judgments. However, it reversed and remanded the portions of the judgment pertaining to maintenance, attorney's fees, and the division of marital property and debts, finding the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Husband for these in personam judgments because there was no evidence the parties lived in lawful marriage in Missouri.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/angela-christine-wilson-v-christopher-darnell-wilson-d85210","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37489:2023-04-14","opinionId":"e3cba432-24c7-5b96-89ec-447d85b05dba","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kenneth-l-livingston-defendant-a-d37489","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKENNETH L. LIVINGSTON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37489","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-14","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kenneth Livingston appealed his convictions for murder and assault, arguing the trial court improperly admitted audio recordings of conversations with his wife and expert testimony on domestic abuse. Livingston contended the recordings were protected by marital privilege and the expert testimony lacked evidentiary basis. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that marital privilege did not apply to threats of future crime or when the marriage was effectively over, and that sufficient evidence of domestic violence existed to support the expert testimony.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","divorce","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kenneth-l-livingston-defendant-a-d37489","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110301:2023-01-17","opinionId":"0e2a7893-9870-558a-b63e-99e013b72c38","slug":"gina-kalish-respondent-v-james-kalish-appellant-110301","caseName":"Gina Kalish, Respondent, vs. James Kalish, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110301","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-01-17","year":2023,"display_summary":"James Kalish (Husband) appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside a 2014 order nunc pro tunc. The 2014 order purported to correct a 2013 divorce judgment by granting Gina Kalish (Wife) the entire pension instead of half. The appellate court agreed that the 2014 order was an improper modification of a final judgment, not a mere clerical error. However, the court affirmed the denial of Husband's motion because his six-year delay in filing the motion was not within a \"reasonable time\" as required by Rule 74.06(c).","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191755","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gina-kalish-respondent-v-james-kalish-appellant-110301","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84855:2022-12-13","opinionId":"1cadbdf0-f9df-592a-bbef-2c9e6e8021a7","slug":"sandra-kaderly-v-kevin-kaderly-d84855","caseName":"Sandra Kaderly \nvs. \nKevin Kaderly","caseNumber":"WD84855","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-13","year":2022,"display_summary":"Sandra Kaderly (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Kevin Kaderly (Husband), specifically challenging the classification of proceeds from the sale of her court reporting business. Wife argued that half of the proceeds were erroneously deemed marital property, contending the business interest was acquired by a corporation or with nonmarital funds. The Western District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in classifying 50 percent of the business sale proceeds as marital property.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191733","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sandra-kaderly-v-kevin-kaderly-d84855","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84946:2022-11-08","opinionId":"c8ab94a1-2aae-5515-88ac-9cd17efe5a0c","slug":"bethany-d-harris-v-douglas-l-harris-d84946","caseName":"Bethany D. Harris \nvs. \nDouglas L. Harris","caseNumber":"WD84946","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-11-08","year":2022,"display_summary":"Douglas Harris appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Bethany Harris, which included decisions on child support, maintenance, marital property division, and a parenting plan. Husband challenged the imputation of income for child support, the amount of child support and maintenance, and the valuation and award of the marital home. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the imputation of income or the property division, and concluding that other issues were not preserved for review.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bethany-d-harris-v-douglas-l-harris-d84946","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84813:2022-10-25","opinionId":"2e237119-e330-573c-92ec-123aae56e2c3","slug":"mustafa-q-alamin-v-likita-n-alamin-d84813","caseName":"Mustafa Q. Alamin\nvs.\nLikita N. Alamin","caseNumber":"WD84813","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-10-25","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the denial of her motion to revive a 2001 dissolution judgment, which had ordered Father to pay child support and maintenance. Mother argued that Father's prior motions to modify child support and terminate maintenance, and the subsequent modification judgments, had revived the original judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that such motions do not revive a judgment under Missouri law and that Father adequately established his untimeliness defense as a legal question.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","divorce","child-custody","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mustafa-q-alamin-v-likita-n-alamin-d84813","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37063:2022-07-05","opinionId":"082cc0c2-d6c6-578e-b415-782c83f98855","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-robert-shawn-eakens-and-billie-jean-eakens-robert-s-d37063","caseName":"In re the Marriage of Robert Shawn Eakens and Billie Jean Eakens\nROBERT SHAWN EAKENS, Petitioner-Appellant\nvs.\nBILLIE JEAN EAKENS, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37063","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-07-05","year":2022,"display_summary":"Robert Shawn Eakens appealed the judgment dissolving his marriage to Billie Jean Eakens, challenging the trial court's classification of a Sterling Bank account as marital property and its valuation and award of the marital home. Husband contended these decisions resulted in an inequitable distribution of assets. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Husband failed to overcome the presumption that the bank account was marital property and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing the home or dividing the marital property.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187757","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-robert-shawn-eakens-and-billie-jean-eakens-robert-s-d37063","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84827:2022-07-05","opinionId":"6d49d010-a9f2-55a3-9a6b-e7f31345dac2","slug":"joyce-elaine-bozarth-v-edgar-forshe-bozarth-d84827","caseName":"Joyce Elaine Bozarth \nvs. \nEdgar Forshe Bozarth","caseNumber":"WD84827","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-07-05","year":2022,"display_summary":"Joyce Bozarth (Wife) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Edgar Bozarth (Husband) and an award of attorney's fees to Husband. The dispute centered on the interpretation of a separation agreement regarding the \"sale or liquidation\" of marital business entities and the division of proceeds. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Husband's sale of all real property assets of the marital entities constituted a liquidation under the agreement, triggering his obligation to share proceeds with Wife. The case was remanded for entry of judgment in Wife's favor, calculation of her damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","contracts","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187715","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joyce-elaine-bozarth-v-edgar-forshe-bozarth-d84827","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37320:2022-06-23","opinionId":"1161b9da-49d1-541d-b73d-87639e1ff336","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-lawrence-g-doyle-and-cynthia-doyle-lawrence-g-doyle-d37320","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of LAWRENCE G. DOYLE and CYNTHIA DOYLE\nLAWRENCE G. DOYLE, Petitioner/Appellant\nvs.\nCYNTHIA DOYLE, Respondent/Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37320","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-06-23","year":2022,"display_summary":"Lawrence G. Doyle appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Cynthia Doyle, specifically challenging the award of non-modifiable maintenance to Wife. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding maintenance based on an estimate of Wife's reasonable needs that lacked supporting evidence in the record. Consequently, the court reversed the maintenance award and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow the parties to present additional evidence on the issue of maintenance, affirming the judgment in all other respects.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-lawrence-g-doyle-and-cynthia-doyle-lawrence-g-doyle-d37320","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37056:2022-05-10","opinionId":"4221bd59-6176-50e0-806d-801f39f0f75e","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-tracy-lynn-hall-and-kelly-wayne-hall-tracy-lynn-hal-d37056","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of:  \nTRACY LYNN HALL and KELLY WAYNE HALL, \nTRACY LYNN HALL, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nKELLY WAYNE HALL, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37056","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-05-10","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kelly Hall appealed the trial court's judgment in his marriage dissolution action, arguing the court erred by denying his motions to reopen evidence regarding his ex-wife Tracy Hall's receipt of substantial nonmarital trust proceeds. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the evidence, as the alleged nonmarital property could significantly impact the division of marital assets. The judgment was vacated and remanded with directions for the trial court to receive evidence on the wife's trust proceeds and conduct further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","trusts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186794","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-tracy-lynn-hall-and-kelly-wayne-hall-tracy-lynn-hal-d37056","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37034:2022-05-04","opinionId":"0db7995f-9e1c-5850-9484-116dab193120","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-dana-lea-wasson-and-jeremy-shane-wasson-dana-lea-wa-d37034","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of: DANA LEA WASSON and JEREMY SHANE WASSON.\nDANA LEA WASSON, Petitioner/Appellant\nvs.\nJEREMY SHANE WASSON, Respondent/Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37034","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-05-04","year":2022,"display_summary":"Dana Lea Wasson (Mother) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Jeremy Shane Wasson (Father), raising four points of error. Mother challenged the denial of her motion to reopen the case for new evidence, the trial court's alleged failure to make specific findings of abuse, the award of $50,000 in attorney fees to Father, and the allocation of a deficiency judgment debt to her. The appellate court found no merit in any of Mother's points and affirmed the trial court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","child-custody","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186674","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-dana-lea-wasson-and-jeremy-shane-wasson-dana-lea-wa-d37034","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84571:2022-05-03","opinionId":"8f4abfb0-06bc-5da8-9225-54a15050e9de","slug":"lacy-anne-craig-v-cory-wayne-craig-d84571","caseName":"Lacy Anne Craig\nvs. \nCory Wayne Craig","caseNumber":"WD84571","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-03","year":2022,"display_summary":"Cory Craig (Husband) appealed from a dissolution judgment, raising six points concerning child support, appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL), and property division. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Most of Husband's points were denied due to failure to preserve them for review, specifically for non-compliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements or failure to plead an affirmative defense. The court found no merit in Husband's preserved claim regarding the non-appointment of a GAL, as child abuse was not expressly alleged in a pleading and no harm to the children was shown.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","divorce","child-custody","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186519","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lacy-anne-craig-v-cory-wayne-craig-d84571","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37050:2022-03-25","opinionId":"47da3ef9-e39c-54ce-b119-8913139fce4f","slug":"mark-alan-clippard-respondent-v-catherine-sue-clippard-appellant-d37050","caseName":"MARK ALAN CLIPPARD, Respondent\nvs.\nCATHERINE SUE CLIPPARD, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37050","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-25","year":2022,"display_summary":"Catherine Sue Clippard (Mother) appealed the circuit court's judgment modifying child support and education cost orders from her divorce decree with Mark Alan Clippard (Father). The appellate court reversed the child support modification, finding the trial court failed to make a statutorily required finding that the presumed child support amount was unjust or inappropriate. It also reversed the calculation of education costs, holding the trial court misapplied the law by using the incorrect income year for division. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, and the case was remanded with directions for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185780","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-alan-clippard-respondent-v-catherine-sue-clippard-appellant-d37050","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109631:2022-03-15","opinionId":"f8d6646e-2471-5ecd-90ae-17f04a8d4c85","slug":"susan-joseph-fka-susan-schrauth-respondent-v-eric-schrauth-appellant-109631","caseName":"Susan Joseph, f/k/a Susan Schrauth, Respondent, vs. Eric Schrauth, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109631","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-15","year":2022,"display_summary":"Eric Schrauth appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his motion to modify his spousal maintenance obligation to Susan Joseph, his former spouse. Eric argued that his current $1,000 monthly maintenance was modifiable because the divorce decree was ambiguous or silent on that specific amount, and the separation agreement was also silent. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the dissolution judgment's non-modifiability provision unambiguously applied to both the initial $800 and the subsequent $1,000 monthly maintenance obligations, thus rendering the maintenance non-modifiable.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185257","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/susan-joseph-fka-susan-schrauth-respondent-v-eric-schrauth-appellant-109631","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84501:2022-03-08","opinionId":"56d9800e-4869-5d5a-b502-41f1d5f52f2b","slug":"alexandra-c-prevost-v-brett-m-silmon-d84501","caseName":"Alexandra C. Prevost\nvs. \nBrett M. Silmon","caseNumber":"WD84501","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-03-08","year":2022,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the modification of a dissolution judgment, which awarded Father sole legal custody of their minor child and adopted a guardian ad litem's parenting plan. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that Mother failed to properly brief her against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenges regarding custody and the parenting plan. The court concluded that the circuit court's detailed findings supported the change in custody and the adoption of the GAL's plan, demonstrating the parents' inability to function as a unit. Mother's claims regarding child support and GAL fees were also denied due to briefing deficiencies.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185019","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alexandra-c-prevost-v-brett-m-silmon-d84501","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84191:2022-01-25","opinionId":"31ee636b-32db-548d-84e6-a1c404cdfb81","slug":"ginger-m-wilson-v-gregory-s-wilson-d84191","caseName":"Ginger M. Wilson\nvs. \nGregory S. Wilson","caseNumber":"WD84191","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-01-25","year":2022,"display_summary":"Ginger Wilson appealed a judgment finding her ex-husband, Gregory Wilson, in contempt for failing to properly distribute a retirement account as per their dissolution judgment. The motion court found the dissolution judgment's language regarding the account ambiguous, allowing Husband's market-value distribution method. The appellate court reversed, holding that the dissolution judgment's requirement to \"release[] and quit-claim[]\" all right, title, and interest in one-half of the account shares was unambiguous and meant transferring beneficial ownership of the shares, not just their market value. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine relief to make Wife whole.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183694","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ginger-m-wilson-v-gregory-s-wilson-d84191","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109164:2021-12-21","opinionId":"85538276-fab4-5f79-a3ec-9c8cccc9bd02","slug":"kathleen-m-mclaughlin-respondent-v-kevin-p-mclaughlin-appellant-109164","caseName":"Kathleen M. McLaughlin, Respondent, v. Kevin P. McLaughlin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109164","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-12-21","year":2021,"display_summary":"Kevin P. McLaughlin (Father) appealed the trial court's judgment denying his motion to modify child support, relieving him of private school tuition, and granting Kathleen M. McLaughlin (Mother) sole legal custody. Father argued he met the burden for modification due to changes in income and custody time, and that the court punished him. The appellate court affirmed, finding Father failed to prove a substantial and continuing change in circumstances to reduce child support and that his conduct justified the sole legal custody award to Mother. The court also noted Father benefited from being relieved of private school tuition.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","child-custody","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182816","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kathleen-m-mclaughlin-respondent-v-kevin-p-mclaughlin-appellant-109164","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84334:2021-12-21","opinionId":"667045ba-6222-5f5f-adec-be59b8b4e0c9","slug":"susan-ann-taormina-v-marc-kenneth-taormina-d84334","caseName":"Susan Ann Taormina\nvs. \nMarc Kenneth Taormina","caseNumber":"WD84334","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-12-21","year":2021,"display_summary":"Susan Taormina appealed a judgment denying her contempt motion and granting Marc Taormina's motion to terminate maintenance following their divorce. The trial court terminated maintenance retroactively, finding changed circumstances due to Wife's cohabitation. The appellate court affirmed the termination of maintenance, agreeing that Wife's cohabitation constituted a substitute for marriage and a substantial change in circumstances. However, it reversed the retroactive termination date, holding that maintenance could only be modified from the date of service of the motion. Consequently, the court also reversed and remanded the denial of Wife's contempt motion for reconsideration.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182771","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/susan-ann-taormina-v-marc-kenneth-taormina-d84334","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84412:2021-11-30","opinionId":"cb545cc0-5eb2-535d-b344-25dbd700ac40","slug":"elizabeth-ann-janet-v-robert-michael-janet-d84412","caseName":"Elizabeth Ann Janet\nvs. \nRobert Michael Janet","caseNumber":"WD84412","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-11-30","year":2021,"display_summary":"Robert Michael Janet (Husband) appealed the judgment dissolving his marriage to Elizabeth Ann Janet (Wife), challenging the maintenance award and the division of marital property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that Wife was entitled to maintenance and its chosen valuation date for marital assets. However, the court reversed the non-modifiable nature and fixed duration of the maintenance award, as well as the amount exceeding Wife's reasonable needs. The case was remanded for recalculation of marital property values to correct errors regarding a truck and building ownership, and for recalculation of a modifiable, indefinite maintenance award consistent with Wife's reasonable needs.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182278","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/elizabeth-ann-janet-v-robert-michael-janet-d84412","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83640:2021-11-16","opinionId":"6deb75f4-b924-5b05-a430-8830924263d5","slug":"susan-ball-v-robert-k-ball-ii-d83640","caseName":"Susan Ball\nvs. \nRobert K. Ball, II","caseNumber":"WD83640","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-11-16","year":2021,"display_summary":"Husband appealed the dissolution of marriage judgment, arguing the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because his counsel's special appearance and request for a continuance did not constitute submission to jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, holding that by requesting the court take action, such as granting a continuance, Husband's counsel submitted to the court's personal jurisdiction, thereby waiving any defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to divide property and debt.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","divorce","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183833","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/susan-ball-v-robert-k-ball-ii-d83640","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84256:2021-11-16","opinionId":"d878a594-3861-5212-9de5-f8fab1e97fef","slug":"michael-james-reichard-v-kari-leigh-reichard-d84256","caseName":"Michael James Reichard\nvs. \nKari Leigh Reichard","caseNumber":"WD84256","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-11-16","year":2021,"display_summary":"Husband and Wife both appealed from a judgment dissolving their marriage, raising multiple points concerning child custody, child support, maintenance, and the division of marital property and debts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in part, including its custody determinations, child support calculation, denial of maintenance, and most property divisions. However, the court reversed the judgment regarding the ordered sale of partially-owned trailers and the classification of a post-separation credit card debt, remanding for further proceedings to address these specific issues and ensure an equitable overall division.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181956","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-james-reichard-v-kari-leigh-reichard-d84256","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84127:2021-11-02","opinionId":"fdec0a2a-2d2d-5cf3-baae-43f9f7f1adb5","slug":"christina-m-aldrich-v-jonathan-e-aldrich-d84127","caseName":"Christina M. Aldrich\nvs. \nJonathan E. Aldrich","caseNumber":"WD84127","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-11-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"Jonathan Aldrich appealed from a judgment dissolving his marriage to Christina Aldrich, arguing the trial court lacked authority because no marriage license was ever obtained, rendering the marriage invalid. The couple had a formal ceremony, cohabited for 27 years, raised three children, and held themselves out as married. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution, holding that Jonathan was equitably estopped from denying the marriage's validity due to his conduct and Christina's good-faith reliance.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182822","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christina-m-aldrich-v-jonathan-e-aldrich-d84127","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109200:2021-11-02","opinionId":"1213210f-ad9c-55ac-a292-412f9cea9ea4","slug":"danielle-m-schaberg-respondent-v-jamie-e-schaberg-appellant-109200","caseName":"Danielle M. Schaberg, Respondent, vs. Jamie E. Schaberg, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109200","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"Jamie and Danielle Schaberg, a same-sex couple, divorced, with disputes over child custody, child support, and marital property. Jamie appealed the trial court's judgment, primarily challenging Danielle's standing as a presumed parent of their child born during the marriage, the division of marital debt, the legal custody award, and the child support calculation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Danielle had standing as a presumed parent due to the gender-neutral application of Section 210.822 RSMo, and denying Jamie's other points on appeal due to lack of preservation or lack of demonstrated error.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","child-custody","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181734","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/danielle-m-schaberg-respondent-v-jamie-e-schaberg-appellant-109200","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109202:2021-10-19","opinionId":"c8b6f677-39ca-5ab6-82a4-e5ef8b2fedb0","slug":"mary-e-wilson-respondent-v-thomas-e-murawski-appellant-109202","caseName":"Mary E. Wilson, Respondent, vs. Thomas E. Murawski, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109202","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-10-19","year":2021,"display_summary":"Thomas Murawski appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Mary Wilson, challenging various aspects including the division of assets and debts, maintenance, child custody, and child support orders. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It reversed the maintenance award for certain child-related expenses, the modification of a stipulated child custody arrangement without required findings, and an order for retroactive child support. The court affirmed the trial court's rulings on other financial matters, property valuations, and debt divisions.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","child-custody","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-e-wilson-respondent-v-thomas-e-murawski-appellant-109202","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98043:2021-07-22","opinionId":"667df89f-24f2-54d3-9932-a792007b46ee","slug":"jeanne-h-olofson-appellant-v-scott-w-olofson-in-his-capacity-as-personal-c98043","caseName":"Jeanne H. Olofson, Appellant, vs. Scott W. Olofson, in his Capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tom W. Olofson, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98043","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-07-22","year":2021,"display_summary":"Jeanne Olofson appealed the dismissal of her Rule 74.06(b) motion, which sought to set aside the property division of her dissolution judgment for fraud. Her husband, Tom Olofson, died after she filed the motion, and the circuit court dismissed it, finding it abated and was moot. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that the motion did not abate upon Husband's death as it concerned property rights, not purely personal issues. The Court further clarified that Rule 74.06(b) allows for setting aside only the fraudulent portion of a judgment and that the action was not moot despite changes in the marital estate.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","civil-procedure","family-law","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178957","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeanne-h-olofson-appellant-v-scott-w-olofson-in-his-capacity-as-personal-c98043","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109069:2021-05-18","opinionId":"e6cc6846-a51b-5573-9dc0-98d039630f38","slug":"william-j-penrod-respondent-v-karen-d-penrod-appellant-109069","caseName":"William J. Penrod, Respondent, v. Karen D. Penrod, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109069","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-05-18","year":2021,"display_summary":"Karen D. Penrod appealed the trial court's judgment in her dissolution case, which found the antenuptial agreement she entered into with William J. Penrod to be valid and relied upon it for the division of marital assets. Wife argued the agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and that the trial court erred in dividing assets based on it. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the agreement was not unconscionable and the asset division was proper.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177277","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-j-penrod-respondent-v-karen-d-penrod-appellant-109069","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36815:2021-05-04","opinionId":"326f7967-b14e-5901-a27d-ed07a83b9075","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-janett-lee-morgan-and-john-wayne-morgan-janett-lee-d36815","caseName":"In Re The Marriage of: JANETT LEE MORGAN and JOHN WAYNE MORGAN\nJANETT LEE MORGAN, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nJOHN WAYNE MORGAN, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36815","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-05-04","year":2021,"display_summary":"Husband John Wayne Morgan appealed the amended judgment dissolving his marriage to Janett Lee Morgan, challenging the classification of Kidi stock shares as marital property and the valuation of a hangar lease. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding Husband failed to demonstrate that the stock classification rendered the overall property distribution inequitable. The court also concluded Husband failed to show the trial court's valuation of the hangar lease was unsupported by substantial evidence or against the weight of the evidence, as he ignored favorable evidence.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177164","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-janett-lee-morgan-and-john-wayne-morgan-janett-lee-d36815","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108836:2021-04-13","opinionId":"0c179e33-aca5-5eb1-aa09-283ea27f8bb0","slug":"dmitriy-dubrovenskiy-petitionerappellant-v-yelena-vakula-respondentrespon-108836","caseName":"Dmitriy Dubrovenskiy, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Yelena Vakula, Respondent/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108836","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-04-13","year":2021,"display_summary":"Dmitriy Dubrovenskiy (Husband) appealed from the trial court's amended judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the award of nominal modifiable maintenance, division of two savings accounts, assignment of the child tax exemption, order to pay a portion of Wife's attorney's fees, and unequal division of marital property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the challenged rulings. The court concluded that the trial court's decisions were supported by substantial evidence and did not erroneously declare or apply the law.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176736","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dmitriy-dubrovenskiy-petitionerappellant-v-yelena-vakula-respondentrespon-108836","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108724:2021-04-06","opinionId":"ab47f1aa-8f7c-5349-87ce-d2ed161909e1","slug":"michael-r-taylor-respondent-v-elaine-m-taylor-appellant-108724","caseName":"Michael R. Taylor, Respondent, v. Elaine M. Taylor, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108724","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-04-06","year":2021,"display_summary":"Elaine M. Taylor (Wife) appealed the trial court's modified dissolution judgment, asserting the trial court failed to follow a prior appellate mandate concerning her maintenance award and the dismissal of Michael R. Taylor's (Husband) tortious interference claim. The appellate court reversed and remanded the maintenance award, concluding the trial court did not properly reevaluate the statutory factors as instructed in the previous appeal. The court dismissed the point regarding the tortious interference claim as moot because the trial court had dismissed it with prejudice during the pendency of the appeal.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-r-taylor-respondent-v-elaine-m-taylor-appellant-108724","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36679:2021-03-10","opinionId":"6b4688ec-7423-5db3-8265-d4305a0ea92c","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-lona-walker-petitionerappellant-v-david-lee-walker-d36679","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of:\nLONA WALKER, Petitioner/Appellant\nvs.\nDAVID LEE WALKER, Respondent/Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36679","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-03-10","year":2021,"display_summary":"Lona Walker (Wife) appealed the denial of her motion to set aside a dissolution judgment, which incorporated a property settlement agreement. She alleged Husband failed to disclose marital assets, constituting fraud under Rule 74.06(b). The trial court denied her motion, finding she did not demonstrate freedom from fault, neglect, or inattention. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Wife's argument failed to account for the presumption that all facts are found in accord with the judgment when no specific findings were issued.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","family-law","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-lona-walker-petitionerappellant-v-david-lee-walker-d36679","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107931:2021-03-09","opinionId":"86b723c2-eb1d-5f0b-92ec-20fe8cc1013a","slug":"laura-sulkin-respondent-v-david-sulkin-appellant-107931","caseName":"Laura Sulkin, Respondent, vs. David Sulkin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED107931","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-03-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"David Sulkin appealed the trial court's judgment regarding maintenance and child support awarded to Laura Sulkin. The trial court had previously been remanded to clarify its findings on Wife's reasonable monthly expenses. On this second appeal, Husband challenged the maintenance award, arguing the expenses were improperly calculated and investment income was not considered. He also challenged the child support modification made by the trial court on remand. The appellate court affirmed the maintenance award but modified the child support award back to the original amount, finding the trial court exceeded its authority on remand regarding child support.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174621","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/laura-sulkin-respondent-v-david-sulkin-appellant-107931","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85912:2021-02-25","opinionId":"7dcc477f-1316-59c4-b576-0234e152269d","slug":"euan-mcleod-v-kristy-mcleod-d85912","caseName":"Euan McLeod\nvs. \nKristy McLeod","caseNumber":"WD85912","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-02-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kristy McLeod appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Euan McLeod, which was based on an oral settlement agreement. Wife argued the trial court erred in denying her motion to set aside the agreement, in entering a judgment with an inconsistent maintenance provision, and in denying her motion to amend the judgment for omitted marital property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's enforcement of the oral agreement, its maintenance provision, or its determination of finality regarding marital assets.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203655","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/euan-mcleod-v-kristy-mcleod-d85912","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36599:2021-02-25","opinionId":"a11766df-63ef-578f-9b75-42550023e727","slug":"anthony-grogan-petitioner-respondent-v-tina-marie-grogan-respondent-appel-d36599","caseName":"ANTHONY GROGAN, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nTINA MARIE GROGAN, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36599","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-02-25","year":2021,"display_summary":"Tina Grogan (Mother) appealed an amended judgment dissolving her marriage to Anthony Grogan (Father), specifically challenging the child support calculation. Mother argued the trial court abused its discretion by not recalculating child support using Father's reduced obligation for children from a previous marriage, a change that occurred after the initial judgment but before the amended one. The appellate court agreed, reversing the child support calculations and award, and remanding the case for further proceedings on those issues. The amended judgment was affirmed in all other respects.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174133","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anthony-grogan-petitioner-respondent-v-tina-marie-grogan-respondent-appel-d36599","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83895:2021-02-23","opinionId":"1359af26-63f8-52a0-a7f5-e3c90c447cbf","slug":"ba-v-douglas-ready-d83895","caseName":"B.A.\nvs.\nDouglas Ready","caseNumber":"WD83895","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-02-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Douglas Ready (Husband) appealed pro se from a trial court judgment awarding attorney's fees to B.A. (Wife) for her appellate attorney's fees in a previous dissolution appeal. The appellate court had previously stricken Husband's initial brief for numerous Rule 84.04 violations and granted him leave to amend. However, Husband's amended brief also failed to correct the deficiencies. The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals sustained Wife's motion to strike Husband's amended brief and dismissed the appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ba-v-douglas-ready-d83895","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82954:2020-12-29","opinionId":"8d3f5772-2fdc-5cb6-b027-6870033bb5c6","slug":"lisa-langston-v-jonathan-langston-d82954","caseName":"Lisa Langston \nvs. \nJonathan Langston","caseNumber":"WD82954","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-12-29","year":2020,"display_summary":"Jonathan Langston (Father) appealed the circuit court's judgment modifying his child support obligation and awarding attorney's fees to Lisa Langston (Mother). Father challenged the calculation of his income, the inclusion of work-related child care, therapy, psychiatric treatment, and tutoring expenses in the Form 14 calculation, and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points, finding no error in the child support calculation or the attorney's fee award.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170893","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lisa-langston-v-jonathan-langston-d82954","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36521:2020-12-04","opinionId":"08a806a0-3a22-5649-b6ec-dec80475f675","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-karen-blanchard-and-lester-blanchard-karen-blanchar-d36521","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of KAREN BLANCHARD and LESTER BLANCHARD\nKAREN BLANCHARD, Petitioner-Appellant\nvs.\nLESTER BLANCHARD, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36521","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-04","year":2020,"display_summary":"Karen Blanchard (Wife) appealed from a judgment dissolving her marriage to Lester Blanchard (Husband), challenging the division of marital property. The appellate court dismissed Wife's appeal, finding that her brief materially failed to comply with Rule 84.04 of the Missouri Court Rules. Specifically, her brief lacked a fair and concise statement of facts, her points relied on did not conform to the mandatory template and were multifarious, and her arguments failed to address the trial court's findings or allege prejudice.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","divorce","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-karen-blanchard-and-lester-blanchard-karen-blanchar-d36521","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83305:2020-11-10","opinionId":"c708176b-e8e6-5975-a657-1d715b118771","slug":"lindsey-m-schuman-v-joshua-c-schuman-d83305","caseName":"Lindsey M. Schuman\nvs. \nJoshua C. Schuman","caseNumber":"WD83305","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-11-10","year":2020,"display_summary":"Mother Lindsey Schuman appealed from a judgment modifying child support and child custody following her divorce from Father Joshua Schuman. The trial court had granted Father's motion to modify, adopting his parenting plan and Form 14, and ordered that neither party owed child support to the other. Mother appealed only the child support modification, arguing the trial court misapplied the law and that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=168997","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lindsey-m-schuman-v-joshua-c-schuman-d83305","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108036:2020-11-03","opinionId":"40f76800-26d6-559e-9aba-1319a4a4421b","slug":"sally-a-white-respondent-v-clayton-h-white-appellant-108036","caseName":"Sally A. White, Respondent, vs. Clayton H. White, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108036","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-11-03","year":2020,"display_summary":"Clayton White (Father) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Sally White (Mother), challenging the awards of joint legal custody, \"primary\" physical custody to Mother, and the visitation schedule for their oldest child, S.W. The appellate court affirmed the joint legal custody award, finding it supported by substantial evidence. It modified the \"primary\" physical custody designation to \"sole\" physical custody, as \"primary\" is not statutorily recognized. The court reversed and remanded the visitation schedule for S.W., holding that the trial court improperly delegated its authority to a counselor and failed to specifically detail visitation rights as required by statute.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=169034","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sally-a-white-respondent-v-clayton-h-white-appellant-108036","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108437:2020-09-29","opinionId":"36fb04f9-947f-53eb-82b3-a8a0958db6b2","slug":"virginia-g-eckelkamp-respondent-v-gary-l-eckelkamp-appellant-108437","caseName":"Virginia G. Eckelkamp, Respondent, vs. Gary L. Eckelkamp, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108437","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-09-29","year":2020,"display_summary":"Gary L. Eckelkamp appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage and dividing marital property. He contended the court erred by using stale property valuations and by excluding evidence of non-marital property. The appellate court affirmed, denying the valuation claim because Husband failed to present current evidence, and dismissing the evidentiary claim due to his failure to make an offer of proof.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=166715","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/virginia-g-eckelkamp-respondent-v-gary-l-eckelkamp-appellant-108437","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83447:2020-09-15","opinionId":"fd76f54b-3e0f-5bab-ad05-d083128a8298","slug":"bna-formerly-bnr-v-douglas-b-ready-d83447","caseName":"B.N.A. (Formerly B.N.R.)\nvs. \nDouglas B. Ready","caseNumber":"WD83447","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-09-15","year":2020,"display_summary":"Douglas Ready appealed from a judgment dissolving his marriage to B.N.A., raising eight claims of error. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because Ready's briefing failed to comply with Rule 84.04, as his point relied on was multifarious, his statement of facts was argumentative, and he failed to cite legal authority. Additionally, Ready did not provide a transcript of the trial proceedings or exhibits, preventing any meaningful review of his evidentiary claims.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","divorce","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=165844","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bna-formerly-bnr-v-douglas-b-ready-d83447","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97984:2020-09-01","opinionId":"62e1a7b9-a124-53d3-a111-cf5ecbd5d4e7","slug":"christine-ann-lollar-appellant-v-richard-dwain-lollar-respondent-c97984","caseName":"Christine Ann Lollar, Appellant, vs. Richard Dwain Lollar, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC97984","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2020-09-01","year":2020,"display_summary":"Christine Ann Lollar (Wife) appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Richard Dwain Lollar (Husband) and distributing their marital estate. Wife challenged the award of a 401(k) account to Husband, arguing the court erred in finding she dissipated marital assets by paying debts and bills. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that even if the dissipation finding was erroneous, Wife was not prejudiced because the overall division of marital assets and debts disproportionately favored her.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=165414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christine-ann-lollar-appellant-v-richard-dwain-lollar-respondent-c97984","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107965:2020-08-04","opinionId":"50cc85e0-337f-5a89-a9c6-fe719264cf50","slug":"gregory-tillett-appellant-v-margaret-tillett-respondent-107965","caseName":"Gregory Tillett, Appellant, vs. Margaret Tillett, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED107965","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-08-04","year":2020,"display_summary":"Gregory Tillett appealed the trial court's judgment on his motion to modify his maintenance obligation to Margaret Tillett, seeking to eliminate it entirely. The trial court reduced his monthly obligation from $2,470 to $1,500 but rejected his argument to impute income to Wife due to her retirement and continued his life insurance obligation. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Wife's retirement was appropriate given her age and health, and that she made good faith efforts toward self-sufficiency.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=163394","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gregory-tillett-appellant-v-margaret-tillett-respondent-107965","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108064:2020-07-14","opinionId":"75f267b3-d649-597a-a71d-431062d4200b","slug":"steven-halper-appellant-v-karen-halper-respondentcross-appellant-108064","caseName":"Steven Halper, Appellant, v. Karen Halper, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108064","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-07-14","year":2020,"display_summary":"Father appealed the trial court's judgment regarding post-dissolution motions, including the termination of Mother's child support obligation and the funding of litigation expenses. Mother cross-appealed the equal division of future litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Father's jurisdictional claim was not preserved for review and that Daughter failed to comply with statutory notice requirements for continued child support. The court also declined to review Mother's cross-appeal due to a failure to preserve the error.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","child-custody","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=162913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/steven-halper-appellant-v-karen-halper-respondentcross-appellant-108064","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108062:2020-06-09","opinionId":"c2796a39-ec84-5788-bbc6-41f807b5fc9b","slug":"kamesh-kumar-ramalingam-appellant-v-vidyarthini-kumaresan-respondent-108062","caseName":"Kamesh Kumar Ramalingam, Appellant, vs. Vidyarthini Kumaresan, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108062","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-06-09","year":2020,"display_summary":"Kamesh Kumar Ramalingam appealed the dismissal of his petition for dissolution of marriage, which the trial court based on an interim injunction from an Indian court. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, reversed the dismissal. The court held that the foreign interim injunction was not properly registered under Missouri law and was not entitled to full faith and credit because it was not a final judgment and due process was not shown. The court further clarified that Missouri courts have jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage and divide in-state marital property, even without personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=159255","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kamesh-kumar-ramalingam-appellant-v-vidyarthini-kumaresan-respondent-108062","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107835:2020-05-26","opinionId":"3c9edf56-b7f9-5ccc-8ea7-789a3eaba8ac","slug":"james-k-davis-appellant-v-joan-c-davis-respondent-107835","caseName":"James K. Davis, Appellant, vs. Joan C. Davis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED107835","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-05-26","year":2020,"display_summary":"James K. Davis appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to modify maintenance payments to his ex-wife, Joan C. Davis, and an order for him to pay her attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case. It found the trial court erred by basing its maintenance decision on inflated expenses, failing to consider the impact of cohabitation on Respondent's reasonable expenses, and abusing its discretion in awarding attorney's fees without considering all relevant factors.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=158033","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-k-davis-appellant-v-joan-c-davis-respondent-107835","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82498:2020-04-14","opinionId":"3228a777-4adc-5207-9ff4-c88f0671712a","slug":"shelbie-torres-v-alejandro-raul-torres-d82498","caseName":"Shelbie Torres\nvs.\nAlejandro Raul Torres","caseNumber":"WD82498","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-04-14","year":2020,"display_summary":"Husband appealed the property distribution portion of an amended divorce judgment, challenging the trial court's order for him to pay Wife an equalization payment. He argued the court misapplied the law regarding non-marital company equity, lacked evidence for the business's marital value, and failed to subtract a marital home mortgage from the net marital estate calculation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's classification of the increase in the value of Husband's non-marital company during the marriage as marital property. However, it reversed and remanded the case for clarification regarding the trial court's treatment of the marital home mortgage in calculating the net marital estate and the resulting equalization payment.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=154614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shelbie-torres-v-alejandro-raul-torres-d82498","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36060:2020-03-09","opinionId":"d334b80d-cf53-5b42-9ba1-5807e01c2cb1","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-janus-lazarus-petitionerrespondent-v-juliana-jacob-d36060","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of:  JANUS LAZARUS, Petitioner/Respondent\nvs.\nJULIANA JACOB, Respondent/Respondent\nand\nSILVIA IMANDA LAZARUS, Third-Party Respondent/Respondent \nRICHARD IMANDA LAZARUS, Third-Party Respondent/Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36060","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-03-09","year":2020,"display_summary":"Richard Imanda Lazarus appealed a judgment of dissolution of marriage that ordered him and his sister to reconvey real estate found to have been fraudulently transferred. Respondent Juliana Jacob moved to dismiss the appeal due to numerous violations of Rule 84.04 in Appellant's brief. The appellate court granted the motion, finding that Appellant's brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04's requirements for the statement of facts, points relied on, and argument section, thereby impeding a disposition on the merits.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","divorce","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=151533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-janus-lazarus-petitionerrespondent-v-juliana-jacob-d36060","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36075:2020-03-05","opinionId":"4fda79c9-6340-5c32-81cf-4777b0e064a1","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-craig-anthony-belto-respondent-v-casie-denise-white-d36075","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of:  CRAIG ANTHONY BELTO, Respondent\nvs.\nCASIE DENISE WHITE-BELTO, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36075","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-03-05","year":2020,"display_summary":"Casie Denise White-Belto (Wife) appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside a judgment and decree of dissolution. Wife argued the trial court erred because she established defenses and good cause under Supreme Court Rule 74.05, presuming the dissolution judgment was a default judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the judgment was on the merits, not a default judgment, because Wife had filed an answer and otherwise defended against the petition, making Rule 74.05 inapplicable.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=151413","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-craig-anthony-belto-respondent-v-casie-denise-white-d36075","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35641:2020-01-30","opinionId":"98ad8286-5e6a-55d6-a7b8-d77b19518cea","slug":"juris-p-simanis-respondent-v-catherine-l-simanis-appellant-d35641","caseName":"JURIS P. SIMANIS, Respondent\nvs.\nCATHERINE L. SIMANIS, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35641","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-01-30","year":2020,"display_summary":"Catherine L. Simanis appealed the trial court's dissolution judgment concerning the parenting plan, maintenance award, division of marital property and debt, and attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, agreeing with Juris P. Simanis that Wife's brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements. Due to these deficiencies, including lack of record citations, legal reasons for error, and relevant legal authority, the court found no cognizable legal basis to find reversible error, thus preserving nothing for appellate review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=149673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/juris-p-simanis-respondent-v-catherine-l-simanis-appellant-d35641","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107455:2020-01-07","opinionId":"96587cda-691c-5e70-a80e-36d5ef46e277","slug":"ladonna-s-lynch-respondent-v-paul-c-lynch-appellant-107455","caseName":"Ladonna S. Lynch, Respondent, vs. Paul C. Lynch, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED107455","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-01-07","year":2020,"display_summary":"Paul Lynch (Father) appealed the dissolution of his marriage to LaDonna Lynch (Mother), challenging the trial court's decisions on child custody, child support calculations, division of non-covered medical and parochial school expenses, and distribution of marital property and debts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's custody determination and its division of marital property and debts. However, the court reversed and remanded the child support calculation, the retroactive child support amount, and the division of non-covered medical and parochial school expenses, finding errors in the calculation of Mother's income.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","child-custody","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=149217","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ladonna-s-lynch-respondent-v-paul-c-lynch-appellant-107455","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35853:2019-10-31","opinionId":"2cb4bac9-4215-5d19-b715-fcdf6537d8a4","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-susan-jane-freed-and-michael-leo-freed-susan-jane-f-d35853","caseName":"In re the Marriage of SUSAN JANE FREED and MICHAEL LEO FREED\nSUSAN JANE FREED, Petitioner-Appellant\nvs.\nMICHAEL LEO FREED, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35853","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-10-31","year":2019,"display_summary":"Susan Jane Freed (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage, specifically challenging an agreed-upon adjustment to Michael Leo Freed's (Husband) 401(k) division. Wife argued the adjustment was contrary to a prior agreement, the plan administrator's opinion, and that the court lacked jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution judgment, finding Wife invited the error regarding the agreement, failed to preserve the plan administrator issue, and did not demonstrate a lack of jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-susan-jane-freed-and-michael-leo-freed-susan-jane-f-d35853","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35817:2019-10-15","opinionId":"24098476-9b8c-5e2f-97ee-42671225ca06","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-shane-strobel-and-bobbi-jo-strobel-shane-strobel-pe-d35817","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of:  SHANE STROBEL and BOBBI JO STROBEL\nSHANE STROBEL, Petitioner-Appellant\nv.\nBOBBI JO STROBEL, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35817","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-10-15","year":2019,"display_summary":"Shane Strobel (Husband) appealed the judgment dissolving his marriage to Bobbi Jo Strobel (Wife), challenging the division of marital property and an order to pay Wife's attorney fees as a sanction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that Husband's points on appeal failed to comply with Rule 84.04(d) and (e) by not adequately identifying the legal reasons for reversible error, explaining the context, or citing to the record for supporting facts.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","family-law","divorce","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=145533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-shane-strobel-and-bobbi-jo-strobel-shane-strobel-pe-d35817","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107353:2019-09-17","opinionId":"ba92e6ec-866d-53fc-adf2-2c8830c7c179","slug":"scott-greene-appellant-v-marietta-greene-respondent-107353","caseName":"Scott Greene, Appellant, v. Marietta Greene, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED107353","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-09-17","year":2019,"display_summary":"Scott Greene appealed the trial court's judgment ordering the sale of the marital residence and dividing the proceeds with Marietta Greene, his ex-wife, following a petition in equity. The trial court also made findings regarding the residence's fair rental value and awarded Scott Greene repair costs. The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment, holding that the trial court's determination of the fair rental value was not supported by any evidence in the record.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","evidence","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=144377","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/scott-greene-appellant-v-marietta-greene-respondent-107353","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35764:2019-09-11","opinionId":"c7d3c384-bc71-59e7-97b7-3cbc9fbebdcd","slug":"kristy-runk-bryan-respondent-v-william-t-bryan-jr-appellant-d35764","caseName":"KRISTY RUNK BRYAN, Respondent\nvs.\nWILLIAM T. BRYAN, JR., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35764","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-09-11","year":2019,"display_summary":"Kristy and Bill Bryan divorced in 2004, with their separation agreement outlining responsibilities for children's health insurance and college costs. In 2017, Kristy moved the court to determine Bill's arrearages, resulting in a judgment ordering Bill to pay Kristy over $60,000 for health insurance and educational expenses. Bill appealed, challenging these awards, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, primarily finding that Bill failed to preserve his arguments for appeal.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=144255","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kristy-runk-bryan-respondent-v-william-t-bryan-jr-appellant-d35764","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106855:2019-06-28","opinionId":"b9963380-a8f8-50ed-af30-8f468dca1cc0","slug":"cecelia-carlis-dickerson-respondent-v-charles-daniel-dickerson-appellant-106855","caseName":"Cecelia Carlis Dickerson, Respondent, vs. Charles Daniel Dickerson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED106855","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-06-28","year":2019,"display_summary":"Charles Daniel Dickerson appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Cecelia Carlis Dickerson, challenging the awards for monthly maintenance, a property equalization payment, and attorney's fees. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The court found no abuse of discretion in the maintenance award, concluding it was supported by evidence of Wife's needs and Husband's ability to pay, including consideration of prospective expenses. It also upheld the property equalization payment as equitable and affirmed the attorney's fee award, noting Husband's greater financial resources and conduct during the proceedings.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=141716","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cecelia-carlis-dickerson-respondent-v-charles-daniel-dickerson-appellant-106855","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81731:2019-06-28","opinionId":"19bc6889-24e5-5f1f-b0f2-2163a45ddd32","slug":"paul-fregeau-v-carol-fregeau-d81731","caseName":"Paul Fregeau\nvs.\nCarol Fregeau","caseNumber":"WD81731","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-06-28","year":2019,"display_summary":"Paul Fregeau appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Carol Fregeau, specifically challenging a $150,000 cash equalization payment to Wife. Husband argued the payment improperly divided his non-marital teacher retirement account. The appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment, finding that the trial court's written judgment failed to distribute all marital property and debt identified in the evidence, thus depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction. The case was remanded for the trial court to enter a final judgment addressing all property and debt.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","divorce","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=141733","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/paul-fregeau-v-carol-fregeau-d81731","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81882:2019-06-18","opinionId":"cdaf3895-274b-595d-8156-f5ad97e86ce6","slug":"jeanne-h-olofson-v-scott-w-olofson-in-his-capacity-as-personal-representa-d81882","caseName":"Jeanne H. Olofson\nvs.\nScott W. Olofson, In His Capacity As Personal Representative Of The Estate Of Tom W. Olofson","caseNumber":"WD81882","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-06-18","year":2019,"display_summary":"Jeanne Olofson appealed the trial court's judgment granting Tom Olofson's (Estate) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which dismissed her Rule 74.06(b) motion to set aside their dissolution judgment for fraud. Jeanne alleged Tom concealed information about the sale of his company stock, a major marital asset. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Rule 74.06(b) requires setting aside the entire dissolution judgment, not just the property division. Since Tom died after the dissolution judgment but before the Rule 74.06 motion was resolved, setting aside the entire judgment would cause the dissolution action to abate, rendering the requested relief of property reallocation impossible and the case moot.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","civil-procedure","family-law","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=141240","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeanne-h-olofson-v-scott-w-olofson-in-his-capacity-as-personal-representa-d81882","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81664:2019-06-04","opinionId":"483405a6-ef2a-5da5-a872-1887625f2103","slug":"laura-collins-v-melvin-collins-d81664","caseName":"Laura Collins \nvs.\nMelvin Collins","caseNumber":"WD81664","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-06-04","year":2019,"display_summary":"Melvin Collins appealed the dissolution of his marriage to Laura Collins, challenging the trial court's decisions on attorney withdrawal, denial of continuance, the validity of an amended judgment, division of marital property, and an award of attorney's fees to Wife. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's amended judgment. It found no abuse of discretion in the procedural rulings or the characterization and valuation of marital assets, and upheld the award of attorney's fees based on Husband's conduct during litigation.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=140853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/laura-collins-v-melvin-collins-d81664","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106488:2019-05-07","opinionId":"08fe3e40-d9b6-5c97-b111-6a42eb0cfa37","slug":"christine-ann-lollar-appellant-v-richard-dwain-lollar-respondent-106488","caseName":"Christine Ann Lollar, Appellant, vs. Richard Dwain Lollar, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED106488","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-05-07","year":2019,"display_summary":"Christine Ann Lollar (Wife) appealed the trial court's amended judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging its child support order and marital property division. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order reducing Husband's child support obligation for a period predating the dissolution petition filing, finding it an abuse of discretion under Section 452.340 RSMo. However, the court affirmed the trial court's division of marital property, specifically the award of Husband's 401(k) account to him, because Wife failed to present evidence of its value. The case was remanded for entry of an amended judgment consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","child-custody","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=141133","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christine-ann-lollar-appellant-v-richard-dwain-lollar-respondent-106488","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81993:2019-04-30","opinionId":"392087f5-971e-5936-a372-53acf7ad79c0","slug":"carla-k-hiner-v-john-w-hiner-d81993","caseName":"Carla K. Hiner\nvs.\nJohn W. Hiner","caseNumber":"WD81993","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-04-30","year":2019,"display_summary":"John Hiner appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Carla Hiner, which included provisions for child custody, child support, maintenance, and attorneys' fees. The appellate court dismissed Father's appeal due to significant deficiencies in his appellate brief, which failed to comply with Rule 84.04. These deficiencies included an inadequate statement of facts, non-conforming points relied on, and an argument section lacking developed legal reasoning and record citations, preventing a meaningful review of his claims.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law","child-custody","divorce"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=139661","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carla-k-hiner-v-john-w-hiner-d81993","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107014:2019-04-23","opinionId":"2dbf490a-b4f0-553a-aab1-1234c56d5122","slug":"thanhphuong-thi-nguyen-appellant-v-dieng-nguyen-respondent-107014","caseName":"Thanhphuong Thi Nguyen, Appellant, vs. Dieng Nguyen, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED107014","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-04-23","year":2019,"display_summary":"Wife appealed the trial court's judgment on her motion to enforce a separation agreement, which had been incorporated into their divorce decree. The agreement stipulated that if Husband failed to release Wife from mortgage obligations on certain properties, the properties would be sold. The trial court awarded Wife damages but refused to order the sale. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly modified the binding separation agreement by substituting damages for the agreed-upon sale. The case was remanded for an order to sell the properties, and Wife was awarded attorney's fees on appeal.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","contracts","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=139479","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thanhphuong-thi-nguyen-appellant-v-dieng-nguyen-respondent-107014","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35580:2019-04-10","opinionId":"547d4ba0-99f2-5aaf-8da2-bd350e365ed0","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-catherine-s-cunningham-and-roger-d-cunningham-cathe-d35580","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of:  CATHERINE S. CUNNINGHAM, and ROGER D. CUNNINGHAM,\nCATHERINE S. CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner/Respondent\nvs.\nROGER D. CUNNINGHAM, Respondent/Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35580","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-04-10","year":2019,"display_summary":"Roger D. Cunningham (Husband) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Catherine S. Cunningham (Wife), challenging the classification and division of marital and nonmarital property and debts. Husband asserted errors regarding the failure to set aside nonmarital property, the disproportionate allocation of marital property, the finding of a property division stipulation, and the valuation of real property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Husband's four points on appeal, primarily due to procedural failures such as not requesting specific findings, invited error, and failure to preserve issues for review.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=139033","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-catherine-s-cunningham-and-roger-d-cunningham-cathe-d35580","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81421:2019-04-09","opinionId":"4a74f359-1a47-5f22-902a-ef5d882059ac","slug":"rebecca-alport-v-jeffrey-alport-d81421","caseName":"Rebecca Alport\nvs.\nJeffrey Alport","caseNumber":"WD81421","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-04-09","year":2019,"display_summary":"Jeffrey Alport appealed a dissolution of marriage judgment, arguing the trial court erred by not including legal descriptions for real estate, not distinguishing marital from nonmarital property, and improperly awarding certain property to Rebecca Alport. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It held that the lack of legal descriptions was not reversible error given changes in statutory requirements and Jeffrey's failure to preserve the issue, and denied other points due to insufficient preservation and briefing.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=138795","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rebecca-alport-v-jeffrey-alport-d81421","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81741:2019-04-02","opinionId":"7bb9d181-65d7-52a6-96fd-b2255cb34354","slug":"heather-c-cone-v-jeffrey-a-kolesiak-d81741","caseName":"Heather C. Cone\nvs.\nJeffrey A. Kolesiak","caseNumber":"WD81741","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-04-02","year":2019,"display_summary":"Heather C. Cone appealed from an Original Judgment of dissolution of marriage, which awarded joint legal and physical custody of the minor child. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Cone's notice of appeal was untimely. The court determined that the parties' post-judgment motions to modify child custody were independent proceedings and did not extend the finality of the Original Judgment for appeal purposes. Consequently, the notice of appeal, filed more than ten days after the Original Judgment became final, was ineffective.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","divorce","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=142033","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/heather-c-cone-v-jeffrey-a-kolesiak-d81741","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106756:2019-03-12","opinionId":"35cfc1a3-9c52-5129-a91f-d566dd19e436","slug":"dimitry-dubrovenskiy-petitionerappellant-v-yelena-vakula-respondentrespon-106756","caseName":"Dimitry Dubrovenskiy, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Yelena Vakula, Respondent/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED106756","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-03-12","year":2019,"display_summary":"Dimitriy Dubrovenskiy (Husband) appealed from the trial court's Amended Judgment Pendente Lite (JPL), which ordered him to pay temporary maintenance to Yelena Vakula (Wife) and established a temporary custody arrangement for their minor child. Husband contended the trial court erred by including speculative living expenses in Wife's needs for maintenance and by making unsupported findings of domestic violence affecting the custody plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the maintenance award and deferring to the trial court's credibility determinations and weighing of factors for temporary custody.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","divorce","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=137876","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dimitry-dubrovenskiy-petitionerappellant-v-yelena-vakula-respondentrespon-106756","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97008:2019-02-26","opinionId":"746d808b-cb22-5b14-904c-6a2be39abb41","slug":"state-ex-rel-jerry-cullen-relator-v-the-honorable-kevin-harrell-responden-c97008","caseName":"State ex rel. Jerry Cullen, Relator, vs. The Honorable Kevin Harrell, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC97008","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2019-02-26","year":2019,"display_summary":"Jerry Cullen (Husband) sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from enforcing an order compelling him to turn over documents related to his military retirement benefits and sign an authorization. Husband argued the order was an untimely modification of a prior dissolution judgment and violated his due process and HIPAA privacy rights. The Missouri Supreme Court quashed the preliminary writ, holding that the circuit court acted within its inherent authority to effectuate its dissolution judgment, not modify it, and that Husband's rights were not violated.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","divorce","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=137244","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-jerry-cullen-relator-v-the-honorable-kevin-harrell-responden-c97008","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106363:2019-01-29","opinionId":"ae593ae2-668a-57c3-9008-b770aec3fe0b","slug":"audrey-jane-griffith-respondent-v-robert-daniel-griffith-appellant-106363","caseName":"Audrey Jane Griffith, Respondent, vs. Robert Daniel Griffith, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED106363","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-01-29","year":2019,"display_summary":"Robert Griffith appealed a trial court order awarding Audrey Griffith $8,000 per month in temporary maintenance during their dissolution of marriage proceedings. Robert argued Audrey did not establish her reasonable needs or inability to earn income, and that he lacked the ability to pay. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that Audrey demonstrated a need for maintenance. However, the court reversed the amount awarded, concluding that the $8,000 per month exceeded Robert's capacity to pay while meeting his own reasonable needs, and remanded the case for reevaluation of the temporary maintenance award.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=136553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/audrey-jane-griffith-respondent-v-robert-daniel-griffith-appellant-106363","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106281:2019-01-22","opinionId":"68e6595d-a596-5614-8899-92c8d4e602cc","slug":"john-m-hark-respondent-v-amy-m-mckinney-hark-appellant-106281","caseName":"John M. Hark, Respondent, vs. Amy M. (McKinney) Hark, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED106281","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-01-22","year":2019,"display_summary":"Mother filed a motion to modify child support and child custody. The trial court modified child support using an outdated Form 14 and denied the physical custody modification, finding no substantial change in circumstances. The appellate court reversed and remanded the child support modification, instructing the trial court to use the current Form 14 and follow the two-step Woolridge procedure. However, the court affirmed the denial of the physical custody modification, concluding that Mother failed to demonstrate the trial court's finding of no substantial change was against the weight of the evidence.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","child-custody","divorce","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=136554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-m-hark-respondent-v-amy-m-mckinney-hark-appellant-106281","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81242:2019-01-08","opinionId":"2d6f933b-6063-5e98-af0f-f7f440eedfa3","slug":"paula-j-severn-v-william-t-severn-d81242","caseName":"Paula J. Severn\nvs.\nWilliam t. Severn","caseNumber":"WD81242","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-01-08","year":2019,"display_summary":"William Severn appealed the denial of his motion to modify a dissolution judgment regarding child support and spousal maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's decision to deny modification of spousal maintenance and the award of attorney's fees to Paula Severn. However, the court reversed the child support calculation, holding that employer contributions to a deferred compensation plan should not be included in William's gross income, and remanded for recalculation of child support.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=135335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/paula-j-severn-v-william-t-severn-d81242","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc96640:2018-12-18","opinionId":"d316ba28-435c-56cc-b0e4-616b80d6a034","slug":"sybil-anne-archdekin-respondent-v-jarrett-alan-archdekin-appellant-c96640","caseName":"Sybil Anne Archdekin, Respondent, vs. Jarrett Alan Archdekin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC96640","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2018-12-18","year":2018,"display_summary":"Husband Jarrett Alan Archdekin appealed the trial court's final judgment dissolving his marriage to Sybil Anne Archdekin, challenging the maintenance award. He argued the interlocutory judgments were not final, the maintenance was erroneously retroactive, and the amount was improperly calculated. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the retroactive maintenance award, finding it unauthorized by statute. However, it affirmed the judgment in all other respects, concluding that other alleged errors in determining maintenance were not material or prejudicial.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=134574","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sybil-anne-archdekin-respondent-v-jarrett-alan-archdekin-appellant-c96640","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81206:2018-10-09","opinionId":"9dbcd192-5d64-5edc-8510-40371f546c07","slug":"stephen-t-richardson-v-karla-e-richardson-d81206","caseName":"Stephen T. Richardson\nvs.\nKarla E. Richardson","caseNumber":"WD81206","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-10-09","year":2018,"display_summary":"Stephen Richardson appealed the circuit court's judgment modifying his spousal maintenance obligation to Karla Richardson. The trial court reduced Stephen's maintenance payments but failed to consider Karla's monthly military pension income when determining her ability to meet her reasonable needs. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erroneously applied the law by *sua sponte* deciding it could not consider the pension benefits as income, despite the original dissolution judgment having treated them as such.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=131616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stephen-t-richardson-v-karla-e-richardson-d81206","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105648:2018-08-07","opinionId":"5c49894b-c646-5d92-92f3-e55e46441d7c","slug":"matthew-parciak-respondent-v-blanca-parciak-appellant-105648","caseName":"Matthew Parciak, Respondent, vs. Blanca Parciak, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED105648","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-08-07","year":2018,"display_summary":"Wife Blanca Parciak and Husband Matthew Parciak appealed and cross-appealed from a trial court's dissolution judgment concerning maintenance, attorney's fees, and property division. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees and its decision regarding Husband's mortgage liability on the marital home. However, the court reversed and remanded the maintenance award, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a limited duration and non-modifiable nature without sufficient evidence of an impending change in Wife's financial circumstances.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=129493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-parciak-respondent-v-blanca-parciak-appellant-105648","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105239:2018-07-03","opinionId":"26206488-99b2-516f-8f8e-a102206fe906","slug":"laura-sulkin-respondentcross-appellant-v-david-sulkin-appellantcross-resp-105239","caseName":"Laura Sulkin, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. David Sulkin, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED105239","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-07-03","year":2018,"display_summary":"David Sulkin appealed the trial court's judgment ordering him to pay Laura Sulkin $5,000 per month in maintenance following their divorce. The trial court found Wife's reasonable monthly expenses to be $5,000 and imputed $2,667 per month in employment income to her, yet still awarded $5,000 in maintenance, resulting in her total income exceeding her stated needs. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the maintenance award, finding the trial court's findings regarding Wife's reasonable needs and the maintenance calculation to be inconsistent and ambiguous, preventing adequate appellate review.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127197","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/laura-sulkin-respondentcross-appellant-v-david-sulkin-appellantcross-resp-105239","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105564:2018-06-29","opinionId":"f55bc62f-689c-5894-a50c-48420b1154c1","slug":"thomas-l-hurst-respondent-v-staci-r-hurst-appellant-105564","caseName":"Thomas L. Hurst, Respondent, vs. Staci R. Hurst, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED105564","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-06-29","year":2018,"display_summary":"Staci Hurst (Mother) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Thomas Hurst (Father), challenging the child support calculation and the valuation of marital property. The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment regarding child support, finding the trial court erred by not using the parties' stipulated gross income for Father. The court also reversed and remanded the valuation of the marital home, concluding it was against the weight of the evidence. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's valuation of Mother's household possessions.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","family-law","child-custody"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127098","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-l-hurst-respondent-v-staci-r-hurst-appellant-105564","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}