445 S.W.3d 59
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Divorce in 1990; Child resides with Mother; Father obligated to pay child support including college costs.
- 1992 agreement: Mother custody, Father 74% of child’s care costs, 74% of uninsured medical expenses, and support until child’s age 22; college fund planned.
- 2007 judgment: imputed Father’s income at $115,000, despite $46k–$58k actual salary; imputed capital gains and a one-time inheritance; college expenses split; mother’s attorney’s fees awarded.
- Remand proceedings on disqualification; 2012 judgment: imputed $148,460 total income and increased support and expenses; substantial attorney’s fees and college costs.
- Court of appeals reverses most imputations (salary, capital gains, inheritance), vacates portions of support/expense awards, and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion; evidence on college expenses and termination date deemed admissible, but termination date overruled.
- Trial court’s imputation errors undermine ability-to-pay findings; ultimately, Court remands for proper determination consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputation of earned income to Father | Elnicki; no evidence of deliberate underemployment | Caracci; imputing income appropriate due to underemployment | Imputation reversed; no substantial evidence of deliberate underemployment |
| Imputation of capital gains income | Elnicki; no credible evidence of underreporting | Caracci; imputing capital gains appropriate when underreported | Imputation reversed; no substantial evidence of hidden capital gains |
| Imputation of income from a one-time inheritance | Elnicki; windfall income should not be annualized | Caracci; resources available to satisfy support should be considered | Imputation reversed; windfall treated as discrete resource, not ongoing income |
| Amount of child support and related expenses | Elnicki; award unsupported by Father’s ability to pay given erroneous imputations | Caracci; trial court appropriately considered needs and resources | Award reversed; insufficient evidence of ability to pay due to erroneous imputations |
| Termination age for child support (beyond 21) | Kocherov/old statute; agreement consistent with law at time | Legislature governs termination age | Termination date reversed; support should terminate at 21 under current law |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchholz v. Buchholz, 166 S.W.3d 146 (Mo.App.S.D.2005) (imputing income to prevent avoiding support; best efforts standard)
- Peniston v. Peniston, 161 S.W.3d 428 (Mo.App.W.D.2005) (evidence required that parent deliberately limits earnings before imputing income)
- Kocherov v. Kocherov, 775 S.W.2d 539 (Mo.App.W.D.1989) (agreement to support beyond majority compared to statute; law controls when in conflict)
- Shiflett v. Shiflett, 954 S.W.2d 489 (Mo.App.W.D.1997) (court must consider financial ability when ordering education expenses)
- Forde v. Forde, 190 S.W.3d 521 (Mo.App.E.D.2006) (balance child needs with obligor’s ability to pay; establish ability to pay)