Mary Lee Rost, Petitioner/Respondent v. Kenneth F. Rost, Sr., Respondent/Appellant
Decision date: Unknown
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Mary Lee Rost, Petitioner/Respondent v. Kenneth F. Rost, Sr., Respondent/Appellant Case Number: No. 70938 Handdown Date: 05/13/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Osage County, Hon. Jeffrey W. Schaeperkoetter Counsel for Appellant: Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Before: Dowd, Jr., P.J., Reinhard, J., and Gaertner, J. Opinion:
O R D E R Husband appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion to modify the child custody provision of a decree of dissolution. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Ronald Wuebbeling, Respondent, vs. Jill Clark, f/k/a Jill Wuebbeling, Appellant.(2016)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 9, 2106#ED103501
L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987
The court affirmed the circuit court's renewal of a full order of protection against Father, which was made effective for his lifetime. The order prohibits Father from communicating with or coming within 100 feet of Mother, except for communications concerning their shared child, based on findings that Father engaged in stalking, harassment, and coercion that posed a serious danger to Mother's physical or mental health.
In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485
Wife appealed the trial court's dissolution judgment, challenging the court's failure to provide a remedy after independent investigation of facts, the use of normalized income to determine husband's maintenance obligation, and the finding that husband lacked ability to pay maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.
In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101121
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of third-party visitation to Smith under section 452.375.5(5)(a), holding that this statute does not create an independent cause of action for third-party visitation when custody is not at issue. The court determined that Smith lacked standing to seek visitation rights after Martinez was granted full parental rights through adoption.
M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141
The court affirmed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, rejecting Father's six points of error regarding the Form 14 calculations, denial of Line 11 credit despite equal visitation time, disproportionate attorney's and GAL fees, and exclusion of testimony on equitable abatement. The appellate court found that Father failed to meet the required analytical standards for challenging the judgment and that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Line 11 credit and ruling against equitable abatement.