Heckman v. Heckman
422 S.W.3d 336
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Father appeals a circuit court modification of child support ordered in 2008 and amended in 2012.
- Court calculated Form 14 using Father’s income including restricted stock, stock options, and an above‑and‑beyond bonus; Mother’s income also contested.
- Court set Father’s MGI at $36,548 and Mother’s MGI at $2,579, applying a 34% overnight adjustment in judgment but 10% in Form 14.
- Court rebutted the PCSA, finding the support amount unjust and inappropriate and setting a new support amount of $4,875.
- Mother conceded error on multiple issues; this court reversed and remanded for proper Form 14 calculations and support determination, and for possible attorney’s fees on appeal.
- The decision also notes errors in computing Mother’s gross income and in using extraordinary child-rearing costs to rebut the PCSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCSA was calculated correctly | Gabbett argues MGI was miscalculated and adjustments misapplied. | Heckman contends disputed items should be included and adjustments may vary. | Partial reversal/remand; PCSA calculation errors identified; remand for proper Form 14 calculations. |
| Whether the court properly rebutted the PCSA | Court erred by relying on factors already reflected in Form 14 and using extraordinary costs to rebut. | Court may rebut PCSA with statutory factors as appropriate. | Remand for proper determination of child support consistent with this opinion. |
| Whether restricted stock, stock options, and dividends were properly included in MGI | Inclusion of restricted stock and options drives up Father’s MGI and distort yields. | These items may constitute includable income under Form 14. | Court did not err in including restricted stock and stock options; erred in including an above‑and‑beyond bonus. |
| Whether the 10% overnight adjustment was correct or should be 34% | The adjustment should reflect 34% per the judgment, not 10%. | Adjustment percentage follows Form 14 guidance; 10% was within discretion. | Court erred in using 10%; 34% reflected in judgment was proper and should have been used. |
| Whether error in Mother's income calculation affected support | Mother’s gross income was miscalculated, affecting proportional shares. | Errors conceded; overall impact on basic amount contested but remanded for fix. | Remand for proper Mother income calculation and overall Form 14 corrections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jeffus v. Jeffus, 375 S.W.3d 862 (Mo.App.2012) (standard of review for support awards; substantial evidence/applicable law)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (preliminary standard of review for judgments)
- Lagermann v. Lagermann, 109 S.W.3d 239 (Mo.App.2003) (form 14 calculation accuracy and evidence requirements)
- Woolridge v. Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d 372 (Mo.App.1996) (use of Form 14 factors; rebutting PCSA and extraordinary costs)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 924 S.W.2d 529 (Mo.App.1996) (income definitions; stock value considerations in gross income)
- Price v. Price, 921 S.W.2d 668 (Mo.App.1996) (considering past, present and anticipated earning capacity)