Legal Opinion

Javier v. Javier

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 21, 1997No. 71624PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KAROHL, Judge.

Husband appeals denial of a Rule 74.06(b)(3) and (4) motion for relief from an amended judgment and to quash an execution issued to enforce an “Order of Amendment of Decree Nunc Pro Tunc” which added a money judgment for attorney’s fees. The money judgment was added to a decree of dissolution after the decree was final. A writ of execution was issued to satisfy the award of Wife’s attorney’s fees chargeable to Husband. After seizure of Husband’s motor vehicle, he filed a motion pursuant to Rule 74.06(b)(3—4) to quash the execution. The trial court denied his motion.

On May 17,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re the Marriage of RoyallMissouri Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. Woods v. WoodsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1942
  3. Unterreiner v. Estate of UnterreinerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Gardner v. GardnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. Meek v. Pizza InnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1995

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. SP Healthcase Holdings, LLC v. Surgery Center Holdings, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2016
  2. Schneidler v. Feeder's Grain & Supply, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. Wilson v. LillestonMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Keck v. KeckMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Bureaus Investment Group v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API