Hoffman v. Hoffman
423 S.W.3d 869
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parents divorced in 2006; judgment imputed Father’s income at $2,832/month then and ordered child support of $357/month for three children. Mother later filed to modify support; Father filed cross-motion.
- Since 2007 Father’s business (Hoffman Packaging) produced no revenue; he worked five months in 2010 for Radiation Oncology Systems and otherwise lived rent-free with parents and did not actively apply for jobs.
- Mother’s self-employment income declined after 2007; by 2011 she accepted a W-2 position at Gallus making $7,333/month.
- Vocational expert Dr. Lorenz testified Father could reasonably earn $80,000–$100,000 per year based on experience; he also testified a 25th-percentile sales representative salary in the Midwest is about $39,000.
- Trial court found Father underemployed, imputed income of $39,000/year ($3,250/month), declined to average Mother’s prior self-employment earnings and instead used her $7,333/month W-2 salary, and ordered Father to pay $812/month in child support.
- Parents appealed: Father contested imputation and amount; Mother cross-appealed, arguing Father’s imputed income should be higher and that childcare costs were miscalculated.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether it was proper to impute income to Father (underemployment) | Trial court lacked evidence Father voluntarily limited income; he was not underemployed | Father voluntarily limited income, failed to seek suitable employment; imputation proper | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding Father underemployed and imputation permitted |
| Whether amount imputed ($39,000/yr) was supported | Imputed amount speculative and against manifest weight | Expert and market data support higher earning potential; trial court could pick a reasonable percentile | Court affirmed: trial court permissibly relied on expert testimony and selected 25th-percentile figure ($39,000) |
| Whether Mother’s prior five-year average should be used for her income | Mother argues trial court should have averaged prior higher self-employment income | Mother’s current W-2 salary accurately reflects present earning capacity | Court affirmed: trial court reasonably used Mother’s current W-2 salary rather than averaging past self-employment earnings |
| Whether work-related childcare costs were miscomputed (46 weeks/year) | Mother: no evidence children don’t need year-round care | Father: he has 5–6 weeks summer custody per parenting plan, reducing childcare weeks | Court affirmed: Father’s testimony and parenting plan supported the 46-week assumption for Form 14 calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hern v. Hern, 173 S.W.3d 653 (Mo. App. 2005) (standard of review and factors for imputation of income)
- Neal v. Neal, 941 S.W.2d 501 (Mo. banc 1997) (Form 14 PCSA requirement)
- Krepps v. Krepps, 234 S.W.3d 605 (Mo. App. 2007) (imputation when party can earn more using best efforts)
- Kohl v. Kohl, 397 S.W.3d 510 (Mo. App. 2013) (trial court’s discretion on imputing income)
- Sherman v. Sherman, 160 S.W.3d 387 (Mo. App. 2005) (imputing income where self-employment revenue was deliberately reduced)