Dorothy J. Breuer v. Thomas M. Breuer
449 S.W.3d 409
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parties divorced in 1995; father (Thomas) was ordered to pay $70/week per child; twins born 1990 (J.B. and M.B.).
- In 2008 a probate court appointed a guardian/conservator for J.B., finding her incapacitated due to cognitive and developmental disabilities.
- J.B. turned 21 on July 30, 2011; father stopped child support payments then. Mother filed a motion to modify on Jan 9, 2012; father was served Jan 26, 2012.
- At the 2013 modification hearing the court judicially noticed the probate file and heard testimony establishing J.B. cannot manage finances, never worked, lives with mother, and has the mental capacity of a child.
- Trial court found J.B. not emancipated, that applying Form 14 would increase support by over 20%, and ordered father to pay $485/month beginning Dec 1, 2013; it denied retroactive increase but ordered father to pay delinquent support since his last payment.
- Court of Appeals affirmed modification to $485/month beginning Dec 1, 2013, but reversed as to requiring payment for the period July 30, 2011–Jan 26, 2012 and remanded to determine delinquency only from date of service (Jan 26, 2012).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether child support may be extended past presumed emancipation under §452.340.4 | Breuer (Mother): J.B. is incapacitated, insolvent, unmarried; support may continue. | Thomas (Father): Probate file shows incapacity but no evidence J.B. is insolvent or unmarried. | Court: Sufficient evidence of insolvency and unmarried status; support may be extended. |
| 2. Whether trial court made sufficient findings to continue support past emancipation | Mother: No specific findings requested; record supports necessary findings. | Father: Trial court failed to expressly find insolvency and unmarried status. | Court: No request for special findings → facts presumed in accord with judgment; record supports findings. |
| 3. Whether modification required a substantial and continuing change in circumstances | Mother: Applying Form 14 produced >20% change, establishing prima facie changed circumstances. | Father: Only foreseeable event was J.B. turning 21; no new/unforeseeable change. | Court: Finding of >20% change satisfied prima facie burden; modification proper. |
| 4. Whether court erred ordering payment of delinquent support prior to service of the modification motion | Mother: Requested retroactive increase and delinquent payments. | Father: Retroactive support before filing/ service is unauthorized; order conflicts by denying retroactivity yet requiring delinquent payments. | Court: Retroactive modification before filing/service impermissible; reversed portion ordering payments from July 30, 2011–Jan 26, 2012; remanded to determine delinquency from date of service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Selby v. Smith, 193 S.W.3d 819 (Mo. App. 2006) (standard of review for child support modification)
- Braddy v. Braddy, 326 S.W.3d 567 (Mo. App. 2010) (insolvency requires evidence of earnings, expenses, inability to meet obligations)
- Walker v. Walker, 936 S.W.2d 244 (Mo. App. 1996) (presumption of findings when no request for specific findings)
- Hudson v. Hudson, 887 S.W.2d 755 (Mo. App. 1994) (Form 14 >20% creates prima facie case for modification)
- Bearce v. Lewey, 182 S.W.3d 737 (Mo. App. 2006) (once prima facie shown, court applies §452.340 criteria)
- Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte, 34 S.W.3d 387 (Mo. banc 2001) (no authority to modify child support retroactive to date before filing and service)
- Hicks v. Quednow, 197 S.W.3d 217 (Mo. App. 2006) (same rule on retroactivity of modifications)
- Rustameyer v. Rustameyer, 148 S.W.3d 867 (Mo. App. 2004) (foreseeability of an event does not automatically preclude modification when other grounds justify it)