Suzanne Beauchamp, f/k/a Suzanne Lusch, Appellant, v. Lawrence J. Lusch, Respondent.
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: Suzanne Beauchamp, f/k/a Suzanne Lusch, Appellant, v. Lawrence J. Lusch, Respondent. Case Number: 73822 Handdown Date: 11/03/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Frank Conard Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Party Acting Pro Se Opinion Summary: Susan Lusch, n.k.a. Susan Beauchamp (Mother), appeals pro se that portion of the trial court's judgment holding her in contempt and fining her $10,000 for altering videotapes of her daughter that the dissolution decree required her to turn over to Father for copying. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Two holds: Mother failed to file a transcript of the contempt hearing. Without a transcript, it is impossible to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. J. Dowd, P.J., Crahan and Teitelman, JJ., concur. Opinion: Susan Lusch, n.k.a. Susan Beauchamp ("Mother"), appeals pro se that portion of the trial court's judgment holding her in contempt and fining her $10,000 for altering videotapes of her daughter that the dissolution decree required her to turn over to Father for copying. On appeal Mother asserts two points of error, both of which challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award either as civil or criminal contempt.(FN1) Mother, however, failed to file a transcript of the contempt hearing. Without a transcript, it is impossible to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the award, and in the absence of such a record the appellate court has nothing to decide. Page v. Associated Couriers, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 138, 140 (Mo.App. 1993). Accordingly, we have no choice but to dismiss the appeal. Footnotes: FN1. In addition to the $10,000 fine, the court ordered Wife to pay the following amounts: $485.87 as reimbursement for reduction in Husband's annuity; $1,873 for items of personal property that Wife did not return to Husband; and $5,602 for Husband's attorney's fees. Wife's appeal contests only the $10,000 fine. 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.