Barnhill v. Barnhill

7 Citing cases

  1. Stitt v. Stitt

    617 S.W.2d 645 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 21 times
    In Stitt v. Stitt, 617 S.W.2d 645 (Mo.App. W.D. 1981), the court reviewed a trial court's refusal to make a child support award retroactive.

    In order that modification be sustained, there must be a showing of a substantial change of condition, § 452.370(1), RSMo 1978, and the burden of proving same is upon the movant, Kieffer v. Kieffer, 590 S.W.2d 915 (Mo.banc 1979). The determination of the issue rests primarily within the sound discretion of the trial court, In re Marriage of DePew, 590 S.W.2d 404 (Mo.App. 1979); Guignon v. Guignon, 579 S.W.2d 664 (Mo.App. 1979) and Barnhill v. Barnhill, 547 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App. 1977). Our courts have recognized that the cost of education is a proper factor in awarding child support, Anderson v. Anderson, 437 S.W.2d 704 (Mo.App. 1969) and § 452.340(5), RSMo 1978, and that provision for private school may be a valid item of support, Degener v. Degener, 478 S.W.2d 687 (Mo.App. 1972); Nelson v. Nelson, 357 S.W.2d 223 (Mo.App. 1962).

  2. Carondelet Savings Loan Assn. v. Boyer

    595 S.W.2d 744 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 24 times
    In Carondelet, we dealt with whether the defendant could supplement the record on appeal to reverse a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

    The reasonableness of the amount is a matter of law to be decided by the court. Barnhill v. Barnhill, 547 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App. 1977). Thus, there is no genuine issue of material fact pertaining to the amount of the deficiency or to the amount of attorney's fees to which respondent was entitled.

  3. In re Marriage of Zimmerman

    592 S.W.2d 171 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    Suffice it to say that the evidence supported a finding that mother had the greater need and father had sufficient financial resources with which to pay the attorney's fees and suit money for the proceeding below. Barnhill v. Barnhill, 547 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Mo.App. 1977); Section 452.355, RSMo 1978. Father now lives in California with his second wife. As noted above, he requested 30 days temporary custody, but the court below gave him two weeks.

  4. Boyer v. Boyer

    567 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 20 times
    In Boyer v. Boyer, 567 S.W.2d 749 (Mo.App. 1978), this court considered whether the trial court erred in imputing income to a non-custodial parent who had decided to go to college rather than work.

    Moreover, a judge is deemed an expert on the value of legal services so as to dispense with the need for any further expert testimony on that score. Barnhill v. Barnhill, 547 S.W.2d 858, 860[6] (Mo.App. 1977). However, the husband is entitled to some relief with respect to the amount of the award for costs on appeal. Judge Gant, who set the allowance in this regard, was at a double disadvantage in that: (1) he had not heard the original testimony which was given before Judge Peters, and (2) he had to estimate the amount of legal work which would subsequently have to be expended in connection with the appeal to this court.

  5. Butler v. Butler

    562 S.W.2d 685 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 18 times
    Holding reasonable inference that husband did not use best efforts to find more lucrative employment where husband withheld child support payments until ordered to do so and offered no evidence that he sought employment to utilize his skills

    The fact that the husband has not paid all the fee is not a matter for our consideration on this appeal. It is not our obligation to enforce the collection of the attorney's fees. The award of attorney's fees is a matter resting in the discretion of the trial court, and we find no abuse of that discretion regarding the amount of fees awarded here. Barnhill v. Barnhill, 547 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App. 1977); Beckman v. Beckman, 545 S.W.2d 300 (Mo. App. 1976). Finally, the wife complains that the trial court erred in failing to order the husband to comply with all previous court orders regarding payment of pendente lite awards.

  6. Hebron v. Hebron

    566 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 25 times
    In Hebron the following stocks were held to be marital property: (1) shares of American General stock purchased during the marriage, titled jointly in the husband and wife, but paid for in part by the proceeds of the sale of land which had been given to the wife but which the wife conveyed to herself and her husband before the land was sold; (2) 357 shares given to the husband and wife "in their joint names," shortly after the marriage, by the wife's father.

    We interfere with its judgment only upon a finding of abuse of discretion. Barnhill v. Barnhill, 547 S.W.2d 858, 860[6] (Mo.App. 1977). The circumstances of both parties, including the ability of the husband to pay, are factors to be considered.

  7. Klinge v. Klinge

    554 S.W.2d 474 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 36 times
    In Klinge v. Klinge, 554 S.W.2d 474 (Mo.App. 1977) we found no abuse of discretion in the award of maintenance and said, "The husband's past, present and anticipated earning capacity serve as competent evidence of his ability to pay the amounts awarded (citations omitted)."

    Finally, the husband attacks the award of attorney's fees to be paid by him. Again, we find no manifest abuse of the trial court's discretion in its award of attorney's fees. Barnhill v. Barnhill, 547 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App. 1977). We have read the transcript, briefs and authorities cited by both parties and conclude that the decree of the trial court, as modified herein, is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence.