ORDER
Nathan Schmitt (“Husband”) appeals from the trial courts 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 Wifes 401(k) awarded to Husband; (2) failing to permit discovery of Wifes attorneys fees; (3) denying Husbands request for attorneys fees and in awarding Wife a portion of Husbands 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 Husbands 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 courts 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Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum that sets forth the reasons for this order.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 Husbands 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 Husbands motion and permitting him to file his notice of appeal out of time. Therefore, we find Wifes motion to dismiss Husbands appeal as untimely moot and deny same.Husband filed a motion for attorneys fees, arguing that Wife “unduly exacerbated [Husbands] 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 attorneys fees on appeal because he considers Wifes filed motions frivolous. That motion is denied, as we do not find Wifes motions or defenses in this case to be frivolous. In the same Order, we stated that to the extent Husband is requesting attorneys 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: