Jamie Lee Kropf v. Mathew Adam Jones
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 487
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parties divorced in 2010; Mother awarded sole physical custody of the child, Father visitation, and child support: Father ordered to pay $1,200/month. The court imputed modest income to Mother and included Father’s rig pay and per diem in his income calculation.
- Father moved to modify child support and increase visitation, arguing his income decreased because rig pay and per diem were no longer taxable and should not count toward Form 14 gross income; he also alleged Mother relocated without notice.
- At bench trial Father testified rig pay and per diem (~$4,000/month) were intended to reimburse anticipated work expenses and were not dollar-for-dollar reimbursements; he conceded the manner of payment had not changed since the dissolution, only the tax treatment.
- Deere testified Mother and child sometimes stayed at his home in 2010–2011 but Mother never changed her address from her parents’ home; Mother testified she and the child lived with her parents continuously through the modification trial.
- Trial court prepared Form 14 calculations including Father’s rig pay/per diem, found presumed support amounts unjust and retained the $1,200/month award, rejected relocation, and ordered Father to pay $3,500 of Mother’s attorney fees.
- On appeal the court affirmed: (1) trial court did not abuse discretion including rig pay/per diem in Father’s gross income or in denying modification; (2) trial court did not err in finding no relocation; (3) attorney-fee award was within discretion given income disparity.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father proved a substantial and continuing change in circumstances to modify child support | Father: rig pay and per diem are reimbursements / are non-taxable now and thus should be excluded from Form 14 gross income, producing a ≥20% change | Mother: rig pay/per diem are significant employment-related benefits that may be included in gross income; Father failed to show actual expenses reducing ability to pay | Held: Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion including rig pay/per diem in gross income and properly found no changed circumstances justifying modification |
| Whether Mother improperly relocated the child without statutory notice | Father: testimony (Deere) shows child resided with Deere 50–75% of time — constitutes relocation without notice under §452.377 | Mother: maintained principal residence with her parents; temporary stays at Deere’s did not change principal residence | Held: Affirmed. Trial court credited Mother; no relocation for 90+ days established |
| Whether trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Mother | Father: challenge fee award as improper | Mother: Father has greater ability to pay; fees appropriate under §452.355 | Held: Affirmed. Fee award not an abuse of discretion given income disparity |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for court-tried cases)
- Breuer v. Breuer, 449 S.W.3d 409 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (discretion to modify child support)
- Gardner, 680 N.E.2d 221 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (non-taxable reimbursements and child-support income analysis)
- Buckner v. Jordan, 952 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. banc 1997) (per diem payments as employment-related benefits)
- DeArriba v. DeArriba, 100 S.W.3d 134 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (application of Form 14 expense provisions to self-employed parents)
- Lindhorst, 347 S.W.3d 474 (Mo. banc 2011) (changed circumstances must make prior decree unreasonable)
- Potts v. Potts, 303 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Smith v. White, 114 S.W.3d 407 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (discretion to include employment-related benefits in gross income)