Meier v. Meier

4 Citing cases

  1. Courtney v. Courtney

    458 S.W.3d 462 (E.D. Mo. 2015)

    This Court has held that “a trial court awarding maintenance and attorney's fees must consider the current ‘financial resources' of the parties.” Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 698 (Mo.App.E.D.2010) (citing McCallum v. McCallum, 128 S.W.3d 62, 67 (Mo.App.E.D.2003) ). Here. the evidence upon which the trial court relied in the Amended Judgment is too remote in time to have allowed the trial court to base its judgment on the current financial resources of Mother and Father. Seventeen months passed between the end of trial and the entry of the Amended Judgment. Given this substantial lapse in time.

  2. Barden v. Barden

    492 S.W.3d 641 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    . In support of her argument, Wife cites Courtney v. Courtney, 458 S.W.3d 462 (Mo.App.E.D.2015) and Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692 (Mo.App.E.D.2010). In Meier, we held that the trial court erred when, in its final judgment distributing the marital property, it used valuation data that was between fifteen to twenty-one months old to determine the parties' share of the marital property.

  3. Courtney v. Courtney

    458 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    In Courtney, the circuit court entered a judgment modifying custody between two parents based, in large part, on the father's alcohol abuse.

    This Court has held that “a trial court awarding maintenance and attorney's fees must consider the current ‘financial resources' of the parties.” Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 698 (Mo.App.E.D.2010) (citing McCallum v. McCallum, 128 S.W.3d 62, 67 (Mo.App.E.D.2003) ). Here. the evidence upon which the trial court relied in the Amended Judgment is too remote in time to have allowed the trial court to base its judgment on the current financial resources of Mother and Father. Seventeen months passed between the end of trial and the entry of the Amended Judgment. Given this substantial lapse in time.

  4. Smith v. Smith

    524 S.W.3d 95 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    A party challenging the validity of the original judgment on direct appeal is not necessarily precluded from a concurrent attempt to modify the original judgment. See Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 699 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) ; State ex rel. State of Kan. Soc. & Rehab. Servs. v. R.L.P., 157 S.W.3d 268, 272–73 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005). However, after the direct appeal of the original judgment is resolved, an action that recognizes and asserts the validity of the underlying judgment is necessarily inconsistent with later arguing that the original judgment was void.