Hamil v. Hamil, s. 25629
| Decision Date | 04 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | 25996 and KCD,Nos. 25629,s. 25629 |
| Parties | ,Stephanie Dean HAMIL, Appellant-Respondent, v. James Russell HAMIL, Respondent-Appellant. 26388. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James D. McGrath, Kansas City, for appellant-respondent.
Lantz Welch, Kansas City, for respondent-appellant.
Before SHANGLER, C.J., PRITCHARD and WASSERSTROM, JJ., and PETERS, Special Judge.
The three consolidated appeals here concern three aspects of the domestic relations of the parties, all tried to the court below. Case No. 25,629 is an appeal from a decree of divorce granted the wife with alimony and child support wherein it is contended by the husband that the wife did not adduce sufficient evidence to establish his guilt of indignities or that she was the innocent and injured party. The husband asks that the decree granted the wife be set aside and that a divorce be granted to him on his allegations and proof.
An examination of the facts in the transcript reveals that the judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous; that no error of law appears; and that an opinion in the case would have no precedential value. Therefore, the judgment in Case No. 25,629 is affirmed.
Case No. 25,996 is an appeal by the wife from a judgment in accounting which awarded $3,308.02 of the joint funds of the parties to the husband. The three points and authorities are entirely insufficient in that they do not set out what rulings of the court are erroneous and the reason that they are so claimed, and two of the points further amount only to abstract statements of law. Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., has been disregarded. Therefore, the appeal in Case No. 25,996 is dismissed.
For like failure to comply with Rule 84.04(d) in the single point, 'The trial court erred in failing to allow money judgment to wife for attorney fees and suit money,' Case No. KCD 26,388 is dismissed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oliver v. City of Higginsville, KCD
...of law and presents nothing for appellate review. Rule 84.04(d); Kansas City v. Garza, 493 S.W.2d 659 (Mo.App.1973); and Hamil v. Hamil, 488 S.W.2d 300 (Mo.App.1972). In the common vernacular, appellants' fourth point is 'no point at Returning to appellants' first, second and third points, ......
-
Langford's Estate, Matter of
...and actions are claimed to be wrong. E.g., Chase Realty Company v. Dorrel Company, 437 S.W.2d 65, 66(1) (Mo.1969); Hamil v. Hamil, 488 S.W.2d 300, 301(3) (Mo.App.1972). The rule envisions particularization of error assignments in points relied on and is not satisfied by reference to the arg......
-
Kerr v. Ehinger Inc.
...formulate points on appeal are legion. For example see: Chase Realty Company v. Dorel Company, 437 S.W.2d 65 (Mo.1969); Hamil v. Hamil, 488 S.W.2d 300 (Mo.App.1972), and Kansas City v. Garza, 493 S.W.2d 659 (Mo.App.1973). The purported points in question fail to rise even to the level of ab......
-
McGuire v. McGuire
...84.04(d) and consequently preserves nothing for review. Ferguson v. Stott, 585 S.W.2d 541, 543 (Mo. App. 1979); see Hamil v. Hamil, 488 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Mo. App. 1972). In any event, we have gratuitously reviewed that portion of the decree disposing of the assets and find the disposition no......