Bereuter v. Bereuter, 46277

Decision Date12 July 1983
Docket NumberNo. 46277,46277
Citation655 S.W.2d 789
PartiesMarilyn Ann BEREUTER, Respondent, v. William F. BEREUTER, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Daniel E. Nack, St. Charles, for appellant.

Rebecca A. Kaley, Clayton, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Appeal from a denial of a motion to set aside an order for temporary maintenance, child support, attorney fees and costs pendente lite. The original motion was set for September 1, 1982. Only wife and her attorney appeared and presented evidence. The trial court ordered husband to pay wife $75.00 per week per child, $42.00 per week maintenance, and $750.00 in attorney fees. Shortly after the hearing ended, husband's attorney appeared. He stated he had fired his secretary and hired a new one and neither had advised him of the setting.

The trial court refused to permit husband's attorney to cross-examine wife or continue the hearing. The order was temporary and husband had an opportunity to pursue these matters in the hearing on the merits. Since this appeal was taken, a dissolution of the marriage has been granted.

Husband's attorney asserts the trial court erred in failing to set aside the order pendente lite. We disagree. There was no abuse of trial court's discretion because husband's attorney did not offer a legitimate excuse for his non-appearance. The hearing was on a motion and not a dismissal of the case. See Horobec v. Mueller, 628 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Mo.App.1982) and Davis v. Moore, 610 S.W.2d 665, 669 (Mo.App.1980).

Husband's second point regarding appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the children is also without merit. Although mentioned in the pleadings for the dissolution of marriage, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 12.17 Mandatory Appointment When Allegations of Abuse or Neglect
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Family Law (2014 Supp) Chapter 12 Child Abuse in the Domestic Case
    • Invalid date
    ...of a GAL in these cases is to protect the best interests of the child and not for the benefit of either party. Bereuter v. Bereuter, 655 S.W.2d 789, 790 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983); Rombach v. Rombach, 867 S.W.2d 500, 502 (Mo. banc 1993). Accordingly, this appointment occurs regardless of whether ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT