Opinion
No. ED 110222
04-25-2023
Timothy A. RAINES, Appellant, v. Lori A. RAINES, Respondent.
FOR APPELLANT: Alan E. Freed, Amy H. Hogenson, Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, PC, 165 North Meramec, Suite 110, Clayton, Missouri 63105. FOR RESPONDENT: Jonathan D. Marks, The Marks Law Firm, LLC, 4 Cityplace Drive, Suite 497, Creve Coeur, Missouri 63141. GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Jessica Mikale, PO Box 740, Hillsboro, Missouri 63050.
FOR APPELLANT: Alan E. Freed, Amy H. Hogenson, Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, PC, 165 North Meramec, Suite 110, Clayton, Missouri 63105.
FOR RESPONDENT: Jonathan D. Marks, The Marks Law Firm, LLC, 4 Cityplace Drive, Suite 497, Creve Coeur, Missouri 63141.
GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Jessica Mikale, PO Box 740, Hillsboro, Missouri 63050.
Before Kelly C. Broniec, P.J., Philip M. Hess, J., and James M. Dowd, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM Timothy A. Raines ("Father") appeals the trial court's judgment modifying its dissolution judgment awarding Lori A. Raines ("Mother") sole physical custody of the two children, modifying child support, ordering a payment of child support arrearage, awarding Mother federal tax exemptions for the two children, and ordering Father to pay a portion of Mother's attorney's fees. Father raises three points on appeal. In Point I, Father argues the trial court's judgment modifying child support is against the weight of the evidence because the court failed to consider all of the income that should be imputed to Mother, specifically the amount Mother's significant other living with her ("Cohabitant") is or should be contributing to her household expenses. In Point II, Father argues the trial court's judgment ordering Father to pay a portion of Mother's attorney's fees was not supported by the evidence because the court improperly evaluated the factors in section 452.355. In Point III, Father argues the trial court's judgment ordering Father to pay a portion of Mother's attorney's fees was an abuse of discretion because the trial court failed to properly consider all relevant factors in ordering the payment of fees.
All statutory references are to RSMo 2016, unless otherwise indicated.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and affirm the trial court's judgment. A written opinion would have no precedential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order under Rule 84.16(b).