James W. Shanks, Jr. v. Meagehn M. Shanks, ED109185

2015: Circuit Court dissolved the Shanks' marriage and ordered James to pay child support to Meagehn.
2016–2017: James moved to modify support due to alleged income decline; a modification judgment was entered May 16, 2017.
James appealed but this court reversed and remanded for a new trial because part of the transcript was unavailable.
Feb. 13, 2019 hearing after remand: parties said no new evidence was needed for modification, but the court received evidence on contempt; James’s employment/income had in fact increased by that date compared to 2017.
June 4, 2019: Court entered two judgments — a Modification Judgment (apparently relying on outdated 2017 financial evidence) and a Contempt Judgment (based on Feb. 13, 2019 evidence, finding Meagehn in contempt and awarding fees).
May 27, 2020: Meagehn moved under Rule 74.06(b) to set aside both judgments (arguing James’s 2019 income increase made the Modification findings incorrect); the trial court granted relief as to both; James appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside the Modification Judgment under Rule 74.06(b)	James: Motion did not meet Rule 74.06(b) elements; record at Feb. 13 hearing was complete and issues should have been pursued on direct appeal	Meagehn: James’s income had materially increased before the June 2019 judgment; the Modification Judgment relied on stale 2017 evidence and contained incorrect factual findings warranting relief	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the Modification Judgment.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside the Contempt Judgment under Rule 74.06(b)	James: Contempt ruling was based on evidence presented at Feb. 13, 2019 and should stand	Meagehn: Sought collateral relief under Rule 74.06(b); argued the overall circumstances warranted vacatur	Reversed — the Contempt Judgment was supported by the Feb. 13 record and Rule 74.06(b) did not justify vacating it.

In re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582 (Mo. banc 2006) (trial court given broad discretion on Rule 74.06 motions)
Hancock v. Shook, 100 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. banc 2003) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 761 S.W.2d 735 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988) (distinction between general remand and remand with directions)
Pinkston v. Ellington, 845 S.W.2d 627 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (general remand leaves issues open and permits new facts)
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. banc 2013) (remand can produce a new state of facts)
Blackstock v. Kohn, 994 S.W.2d 947 (Mo. banc 1999) (presence at hearing ordinarily limits collateral relief; discussed by court)
Finley v. St. John's Mercy Med. Ctr., 958 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (Rule 74.06(b) relief limited to errors that, if known, would have prevented entry of the judgment)