Case Name: Suzanne Taylor HUNN, Respondent, v. James TAYLOR, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-10-10
Citations: 28 S.W.3d 483
Docket Number: No. ED 76593
Parties: Suzanne Taylor HUNN, Respondent, v. James TAYLOR, Appellant.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J., and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 28
Pages: 483–484

Head Matter:
Suzanne Taylor HUNN, Respondent, v. James TAYLOR, Appellant.
No. ED 76593.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Oct. 10, 2000.
James M. Martin, St. Louis, for appellant.
James J. Leightner, Clayton, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J., and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
James Taylor ("Father") appeals from a dissolution modification judgment increasing his child support obligation, and from the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing or for New Trial. We find that the judgment is supported by the evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).