Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

McCay, Respondent, v. Kathleen P. McCay Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
mccay-respondent-v-kathleen-p-mccay
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal Law
Archive note: 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. 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.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving McCay, Respondent, v. Kathleen P. McCay

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Kathleen McCay appealed the dismissal of her motion to cite her deceased former spouse, David McCay, for contempt for failing to pay her proportionate share of retirement benefits as mandated by their dissolution judgment. The trial court dismissed the motion, finding it barred by the 1999 version of Section 516.350's statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed, holding that the 2001 amendment to Section 516.350, which changed the presumption of payment for periodic employee benefits, applied retroactively because the original 10-year limitations period had not expired when the amendment took effect, thus not affecting any vested substantive rights.