Adam W. Rackers v. Jennifer A. Rackers
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 986
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Marriage dissolved 2008; two children; joint legal and physical custody with equal time. Initial child support set at $833/month.
- 2011 modification reduced support to $252/month and granted Father (Adam Rackers) a 50% Line 11 credit on Form 14, finding it "just and appropriate."
- Mother (Jennifer Rackers) later adjudicated disabled and received SSDI. She filed a 2014 modification based on disability and increased Father income; trial held June 2015.
- At trial Mother testified to monthly SSDI ~$1,069 and additional $165/month SSA payments per child; Father testified to gross monthly income $4,168 and sought continuation of a 50% Line 11 credit.
- Mother requested (1) removal of the Line 11 credit, (2) right of first refusal to care for children when Father is unavailable overnight, and (3) attorney fees. Trial court increased support to $355/month, kept the 50% Line 11 credit, denied first-refusal and denied attorney fees. Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 50% Line 11 credit on Form 14 | Mother: Line 11 credit impermissible because recipient-parent's (Mother) adjusted monthly gross income <$1,700 for two children; no Caveat exception applies | Father: Court properly awarded credit based on lack of significant non-duplicated expenses and evidence Mother cohabits/support from relatives | Court: Reversed as erroneous. Form 14 Caveat prohibits Line 11 adjustment when recipient's income <$1,700 unless an exception applies; no exception shown. Remanded to remove Line 11 credit and recalculate presumed amount, then consider rebuttal step. |
| Right of first refusal when Father unavailable overnight | Mother: Best interests require preference for parent over third parties when Father misses overnights; evidence shows children upset by multiple homes | Father: Rarely misses overnights; when absent children stay with his parents and arrangement is appropriate; credibility disputes support denying change | Court: Affirmed denial. Trial court credited Father's testimony, found no substantial change or best-interest basis to modify parenting plan or impose first-refusal; exclusion not reversible error. |
| Award of attorney fees to Mother | Mother: Financial disparity (disability income vs Father income) and Father's discovery failures justify fees under §452.355 | Father: Each party should bear own fees; trial court acted within discretion; discovery objections were not remedied by motion practice | Court: Affirmed denial. Trial court considered factors; financial disparity alone insufficient, and Mother failed to pursue discovery remedies; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Nelson, 25 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. App. W.D.) (standard of review for child support awards)
- Woolridge v. Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. App. W.D.) (two-step Form 14 / presumed child support then rebuttal)
- Neal v. Neal, 941 S.W.2d 501 (Mo. banc) (approving Woolridge procedure)
- McCandless-Glimcher v. Glimcher, 73 S.W.3d 68 (Mo. App. W.D.) (Form 14 completion requirements and review)
- Jeffus v. Jeffus, 375 S.W.3d 862 (Mo. App. W.D.) (Line 11 Caveat income-threshold application)
- Wright ex rel. McBath v. Wright, 129 S.W.3d 882 (Mo. App. W.D.) (deference to trial court in custody determinations)
- Alberswerth v. Alberswerth, 184 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. App. W.D.) (standards and factors for awarding attorney fees in domestic relations)