SCHMITT v. SCHMITT (2024)

ORDER

Nathan Schmitt (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court's dissolution judgment. Husband argues the trial court erred in: (1) its division of property because it failed to consider the penalties and tax consequences attendant to the portion of Wife's 401(k) awarded to Husband; (2) failing to permit discovery of Wife's attorney's fees; (3) denying Husband's request for attorney's fees and in awarding Wife a portion of Husband's equity in the marital residence because Husband was not frivolously litigating well-settled areas of the law; (4) awarding equal parenting time because it was not in the best interest of the children; (5) finding that its presumed child-support amount was unjust and inappropriate after finding Husband was underemployed; (6) failing to award spousal support to Husband and requiring him to deplete marital property awarded to him to meet his reasonable needs; and (7) failing to award spousal support despite Husband's inability to support himself through appropriate employment. We deny Point IV and find all other points on appeal are abandoned by acquiescence in the judgment, and are therefore denied. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.¹

Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum that sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Wife filed a separate motion to dismiss arguing that Husband's appeal was untimely. Husband thereafter filed a motion for leave to file his notice of appeal out of time. This Court issued a special order sustaining Husband's motion and permitting him to file his notice of appeal out of time. Therefore, we find Wife's motion to dismiss Husband's appeal as untimely moot and deny same.Husband filed a motion for attorney's fees, arguing that Wife “unduly exacerbated [Husband's] attorneys’ fees, attendant to litigating [this] appeal.” Per our March 25, 2024 Order, we took with the case such motion to the extent Husband requests attorney's fees on appeal because he considers Wife's filed motions frivolous. That motion is denied, as we do not find Wife's motions or defenses in this case to be frivolous. In the same Order, we stated that to the extent Husband is requesting attorney's fees pursuant to Section 452.355, it was remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of taking up and considering his motion for fees.

PER CURIAM: