Case Name: Charles A. GRISWOLD, Appellant, v. Rosemary GRISWOLD, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-08-15
Citations: 198 S.W.3d 205
Docket Number: No. ED 86902
Parties: Charles A. GRISWOLD, Appellant, v. Rosemary GRISWOLD, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 198
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
Charles A. GRISWOLD, Appellant, v. Rosemary GRISWOLD, Respondent.
No. ED 86902.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Aug. 15, 2006.
Spencer E. Williams, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jane E. Tomieh, St. Charles, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Charles Griswold ("Father") appeals from the trial court's judgment modifying the dissolution decree between Father and Rosemary Griswold ("Mother") in which the trial court increased Father's monthly child support obligation from $400 per month to $700 per month. Father argues the trial court erred in increasing the amount of child support because Mother did not show a change of circumstances so substantial and continuing that it rendered the terms of the initial order unreasonable.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 586 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. bane 1976). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec- edential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).