Case Name: Jane Kevin WAITE, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Louis Edward WAITE, Jr., Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-05-30
Citations: 193 S.W.3d 783
Docket Number: No. ED 86348
Parties: Jane Kevin WAITE, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Louis Edward WAITE, Jr., Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before NANNETTE A. BAKER, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 193
Pages: 783–783

Head Matter:
Jane Kevin WAITE, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Louis Edward WAITE, Jr., Respondent/Appellant.
No. ED 86348.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
May 30, 2006.
James J. Robinson, Chesterfield, MO, for appellant.
May Ann Weems, Gretchen Ruth Szyd-lowski, co-counsel, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before NANNETTE A. BAKER, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Louis Edward Waite, Jr. (Father) appeals from a trial court judgment denying his Motion to Modify a Decree of Dissolution. Father alleges trial court error in failing to reduce his child support obligation and in awarding attorney's fees to Jane Kevin Waite (Mother). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court's judgment denying Father's Motion to Modify is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Rustemeyer v. Rustemeyer, 148 S.W.3d 867, 870 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney's fees to Mother. Bullard v. Briem, 969 S.W.2d 880, 884 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).