Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Samuel Culbertson, Appellant, v. Director, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: administrative
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/samuel-culbertson-appellant-v-director-division-of-child-support-enforcem-12836
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12836
Related Practice Areas:
- Family Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/family?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=family&ott_archive_query=Samuel+Culbertson%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+Director%2C+Division+of+Child+Support+Enforcement%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=text&ott_archive_link_score=6&ott_archive_link_evidence=text%3A+child+support&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: family; source: text; score: 6; evidence: text: child support)

---
## 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:  Samuel Culbertson, Appellant, v. Director, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Respondent.
Case Number:  72020
Handdown Date:  03/31/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Susan E. Block
Counsel for Appellant:  Chad H. Darce
Counsel for Respondent:  Cathlin Shock
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ahrens, P.J., Crandall Jr., and Karohl, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Samuel Culbertson appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, approving, upon 
administrative review, the decision of the Director of the Division of Child Support Enforcement to modify child support 
obligations pursuant to Section 454.496 RSMo 1994.  Samuel Culbertson contends the hearing officer improperly imputed 
income to him.  We affirm.
We have read the briefs and the record on appeal. The actions of the administrative agency were supported by 
competent and substantial evidence and were not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.  The judgment of the trial court 
sustaining the decision of the hearing officer is affirmed.  An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles 
of law would have no precedential value.   However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their 
information only, setting forth the facts and 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.