TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Powers v. Powers

Patricia POWERS, Appellant-Respondent v. Robert POWERS

Powers v. Powers, 544 S.W.2d 339 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 30, 1976
Docket
Nos. 37538, 37539
Judges
Clemens, Dowd, Weier
Citations
544 S.W.2d 3391976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2295
Cited by 6

Opinion of the Court — Clemens

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

CLEMENS, Judge.

Plaintiff-wife and defendant-husband cross appeal from $4,500 attorney fee and $342 suit money award, allowed after this court’s decision in the case of In re Marriage of Powers, 527 S.W.2d 949 (Mo.App.1975). Each party relies on two points.

Plaintiff-wife contends the court improperly refused to admit evidence of her current expenses. Section 452.355, V.A.M.S. (1976 Supp.) requires the consideration of “all relevant factors, including the financial resources of both parties . . . ” when considering the award of attorney’s fees. Current expenses are relevant to financial resources, but in her offer of proof plaintiff presented nothing to show any change in expenses shown by the transcript of the previous trial. See In Re Marriage of Powers, l.c. 952, supra. The exclusion of evidence of current expenses was therefore harmless.

Both parties contend the amount of the award shows an abuse of discretion. The amount of award is within the broad discretion of the trial court. After a full review of the evidence we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Defendant-husband contends the trial court erred in making the allowance after the appeal was decided. The Point Relied On does not state why this was erroneous. An abstract point fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d) and preserves nothing for our review.

Judgment affirmed.

WEIER, P. J., and DOWD, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1977: 11978: 41981: 119772026peak 1978 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Marriage of Frankel550 S.W.2d 896 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
  2. Martin v. Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis580 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
  3. Plaster v. Standley569 S.W.2d 784 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
  4. Mazurek v. Mazurek575 S.W.2d 227 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
  5. Snow v. Fikes570 S.W.2d 815 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
  6. Arend v. Great Southern Savings & Loan Ass'n611 S.W.2d 381 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)

Most recent

  1. Arend v. Great Southern Savings & Loan Ass'n611 S.W.2d 381 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)
  2. Mazurek v. Mazurek575 S.W.2d 227 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
  3. Martin v. Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis580 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
  4. Snow v. Fikes570 S.W.2d 815 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
  5. Plaster v. Standley569 S.W.2d 784 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
  6. In re Marriage of Frankel550 S.W.2d 896 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Marriage of Powers, 527 S.W.2d 949 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975) 133

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list