414 S.W.3d 29
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Husband appeals a dissolution judgment that ordered child support of $974 per month for two children aged nine and six.
- Trial court rejected both parties' Form 14s and drafted its own Form 14 incorporating $590 monthly childcare and health-insurance costs, plus an order to pay all outstanding childcare bills.
- Judgment stated parties would split future post-secondary educational expenses equally (50/50).
- Marital assets included Adams Masonry, LLC, valued at $20,500 and awarded to Husband; total estate division left Wife with $14,360 and Husband with $42,550; Husband ordered to pay Wife $14,095 within 90 days to equalize.
- Parties had stipulated to joint legal and physical custody with a custody schedule; main issues at trial were child-support calculations and property division.
- Appellate review followed Rule 84.13(d); the issues raised were concerning Form 14 calculations, post-secondary expenses, and the lump-sum equalization payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Form 14 child-support calculation was proper. | Adams contends the Form 14 costs (childcare/insurance) were misvalued and burden was unsupportable. | Bates argues trial court should have credited overnight custody adjustments and rebutted Form 14 amount. | No error; trial court's calculation and discretion upheld. |
| Whether there was an agreement to split post-secondary expenses and whether the court erred. | Adams asserts no evidence of such an agreement and it should not have been found. | Bates argues the court could infer an agreement and acted within discretion. | Held that the point is not preserved or is without merit; court properly addressed the issue. |
| Whether the lump-sum equalization of property was proper given Husband's financial ability. | Adams claims no means to pay the $14,095 lump sum within 90 days. | Bates argues court could consider Husband's assets and economic circumstances; lump sum appropriate under discretionary division. | No abuse of discretion; lump-sum payment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Noland-Vance, 344 S.W.3d 233 (Mo.App.2011) (standard of review for dissolution appeals)
- Crow v. Crow, 300 S.W.3d 561 (Mo.App.2009) (procedure to rebut Form 14 presumptions)
- Bottorff v. Bottorff, 221 S.W.3d 482 (Mo.App.2007) (self-support reserve and rebuttal burden)
- Russell v. Russell, 210 S.W.3d 191 (Mo.banc 2007) (overnight custody adjustments and 92–109 days rule)
- Ricklefs v. Ricklefs, 39 S.W.3d 865 (Mo.App.2001) (post-secondary education expenses not always in Form 14)