Case Name: Irina A. KHECHOYAN, Respondent, v. Boris A. KHECHOYAN, Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-05-15
Citations: 556 S.W.3d 61
Docket Number: No. ED 105605
Parties: Irina A. KHECHOYAN, Respondent,
v.
Boris A. KHECHOYAN, Appellant.
Judges: Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J. and Philip M. Hess, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 556
Pages: 61–62

Head Matter:
Irina A. KHECHOYAN, Respondent,
v.
Boris A. KHECHOYAN, Appellant.
No. ED 105605
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: May 15, 2018
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 16, 2018
Application for Transfer Denied September 25, 2018
Alan E. Freed, Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C., 165 North Meramec, Suite 110, Clayton, Missouri 63105, for Appellant.
Craig G. Kallen, Kallen Law Firm, LLC, 13321 North Outer Forty Road, Suite 100, Town and Country, Missouri 63017, Rachel S. Gray, Kallen Law Firm, LLC, 13321 North Outer Forty Road, Suite 100, Town and Country, Missouri 63017, for Respondent.
Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J. and Philip M. Hess, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Boris Khechoyan ("Father") and Irina Khechoyan ("Mother") married in 1993 and had two children, Yuri Borisovich Khechoyan ("Son") and Alice Alina Khechoyan ("Daughter"), during their marriage. On September 23, 2013, Mother obtained a default judgment of legal separation. Father moved to modify the default judgment, and to set aside the default judgment for fraud, alleging Mother was married to another man when she married him in 1993. Mother moved for contempt, alleging Father had failed to pay the amounts ordered in the default judgment. The trial court granted Father's motion to modify in part, denied Father's motion to set aside, and granted Mother's motion for contempt. Father appeals from that judgment, raising two points: (1) the trial court erroneously applied the law in denying his motion to set aside because Mother lacked the capacity to marry Father when she was married to another man; and (2) the trial court's order determining Son remained unemancipated until June 2016 is not supported by the evidence because he did not provide his college transcripts under § 452.340.5. Because we find the trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).