Danelle M. Frantz, n/k/a Danelle M. Shipp v. David B. Frantz
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 248
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District, Division Three, case of Danelle M. Frantz n/k/a Shipp vs David B. Frantz, No. ED102647.
- Final Decree (2009 Texas divorce) awarded Mother sole managing conservator and Father possessory conservator; Final Decree registered in Missouri.
- In 2013, Father sought a family access order and a modification to obtain joint legal/physical custody, alleging Mother interfered with visitation and seeking related costs.
- Trial court modified the Final Decree to grant joint legal and physical custody and held Mother in contempt for visitation interference.
- Judgment ordered airfare losses ($3,300), attorney’s fees ($7,500), and litigation travel expenses ($2,728.73); Mother appealed; some issues treated as interlocutory and others as independently appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt and appealability of the contempt judgment | Frantz argues contempt punishment and airfare loss order were improper. | Shipp contends contempt and related costs were proper. | Contempt judgment is interlocutory/unappealable until enforced; airfare issue dismissed, but related attorney’s fees and travel expenses are reviewable. |
| Attorney’s fees and litigation travel expenses awarded to Father | Frantz challenges the award as beyond pleadings or scope. | Shipp asserts proper scope and authority to award given modification and contempt findings. | Courts had authority from multiple sources to award fees and travel expenses; no abuse of discretion; fees affirmed. |
| Joint legal custody award after claimed lack of change in circumstances | Frantz contends no substantial change or cooperation to justify joint custody. | Frantz asserts joint custody inappropriate due to parental incapacity to cooperate. | There was substantial evidence of changed circumstances and best interests supported joint legal custody. |
| Role of Father's parents during Father's absence; visitation provisions | Frantz argues trial court erred by allowing third parties to exercise custody in Father's absence. | Frantz relies on existing visitation framework and arrangements. | Points IV and V (and VIII) summarily denied as non-precedential. |
| Counter-motion to modify visitation provisions | Frantz sought changes to visitation provisions not fully granted. | Shipp contends court’s ruling aligned with evidence. | Point VIII summarily denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Crow & Gilmore, 103 S.W.3d 778 (Mo.Banc 2003) (civil contempt finality and enforcement principles; appellate review limits)
- Bruns v. Bruns, 186 S.W.3d 449 (Mo.App.W.D. 2006) (attorney's fees and costs in civil contempt awarded for willful disobedience; inherent powers)
- Courtney v. Courtney, 458 S.W.3d 462 (Mo.App.E.D. 2015) (attorney's fees/costs in contempt proceedings are appealable independent of contempt order)
- Keel v. Keel, 439 S.W.3d 866 (Mo.App.E.D. 2014) (custody awards given deference; change in circumstances standard)
- In re C.N.H., 998 S.W.2d 553 (Mo.App.S.D. 1999) (interference with visitation is relevant to best interests and custody decisions)
- Russell v. Russell, 210 S.W.3d 191 (Mo.banc 2007) (modification requires substantial change in circumstances; best interests)