Spott v. Spott

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the retroactive order of child support for a child for whom no support was ever ordered does not violate Rule 90.3(h)(2) because \'[als to that child there is no child support order and thus no order to retroactively modify\
• explaining that retroactive child support is permitted if there was no support order in place for that time period

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).