maintenance requirement in Missouri

2023Simpson also involved the remarriage of someone receiving maintenance pursuant to a written agreement. 352 S.W.3d at 363 .

2023As Husband correctly observes, this maintenance requirement is akin to a requirement that maintenance be paid “for a time certain of 24 months ($7,800 divided by $325/month = 24 months).” When viewed in this manner, the maintenance requirement in the written agreement in Cates is not dissimilar to the requirement in the instant case that Husband pay maintenance until the time certain date of his 65th birthday. 5 Ultimately, in Cates, our Supreme Court concluded, “[w]e find no agreement between the parties in writing that either expressly or by implication extends the obligation to pay future s

2018Nonetheless, the circuit court barred Johnson from asserting her affirmative defense and counterclaim based on the implied warranty of habitability because she "failed to either vacate the premises or tender her rent to the Court in custodia legis as required by" King v. Moorehead , 495 S.W.2d 65 , 77 (Mo. App. 1973). *282 However, the circuit court also found, while Johnson was barred from asserting her affirmative defense and counterclaim, Kohner breached its promise to make repairs under the maintenance clause of the lease agreement and awarded Johnson a set-off for hotel expenses.

2004In resolving this point on appeal, we must reconcile the present matter with this court’s recent decision in Reckner v. Fischer, 121 S.W.3d 296 (Mo.App.2003).

2000It is incumbent upon the objecting party to make the basis of his objection reasonably apparent to the court in order to provide the opponent an opportunity to correct the error and the court to correctly rule it.” Id. at [5].

1999This solution shall produce a vapor alcohol value of .100% ± 3% when heated to 34° ± 0.2° Celsius in a simulator.” 1 After Surface tested the machine, but before Bescheinen’s trial, the Department of Health amended this regulation to require that “[standard simulator solutions, used to verify and calibrate evidential breath analyzers at the 0.10% or 0.100% level, shall be solutions from approved suppliers.” 2 The director argues, on the basis of Eckhoff, 745 S.W.2d at 817 , that regulations governing testing procedures were procedural, rather than substantive, requirements; therefore, the amen

1998Berman, 701 S.W.2d at 785 .

1997Arizona v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 459 U.S. 909 , 103 S.Ct. 215 , 74 L.Ed.2d 171 (1982)) (to obtain discovery, material sought must be “highly material and relevant, necessary or critical to the maintenance of the claim”).

1997Arizona v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 459 U.S. 909 , 103 S.Ct. 215 , 74 L.Ed.2d 171 (1982)) (to obtain discovery, material sought must be “highly material and relevant, necessary or critical to the maintenance of the claim”).

1997Arizona v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 459 U.S. 909 , 103 S.Ct. 215 , 74 L.Ed.2d 171 (1982)) (to obtain discovery, material sought must be “highly material and relevant, necessary or critical to the maintenance of the claim”).

1993Petitioner argues against remand, citing Johnson v. Director of Revenue, 829 S.W.2d 572 (Mo.App.1992), to us in oral argument.

1993Finding the results of the breath test were improperly admitted, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to allow the Director “an opportunity to present additional evidence to establish compliance with the maintenance requirement.” Id. at 97 .

1982Raines v. Raines, 583 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.App.1979) [9,10]; Cissell v. Cissell, 573 S.W.2d 722 (Mo.App.1978) [7], Also the determination of the amount of the fee to be borne by each of the parties is a matter of discretion.

1982Raines v. Raines, 583 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.App.1979) [9,10]; Cissell v. Cissell, 573 S.W.2d 722 (Mo.App.1978) [7], Also the determination of the amount of the fee to be borne by each of the parties is a matter of discretion.

1918Louis, 226 Mo. 62, 75, 76 ; City of Springfield v. Plummer, 89 Mo. App. 515, 530 ; Souther Iron Co. v. Woodruff Realty Company, 175 Mo. App. 246 ; 15 R.

1918Louis, 226 Mo. 62, 75, 76 ; City of Springfield v. Plummer, 89 Mo. App. 515, 530 ; Souther Iron Co. v. Woodruff Realty Company, 175 Mo. App. 246 ; 15 R.