Jeffus v. Jeffus
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1005
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Marriage of Welsh and Wife occurred on Feb 14, 2002; two children born of the marriage.
- Wife and children resided in Louisiana; Husband resided in Missouri at dissolution time.
- Husband petitioned for dissolution on Dec 4, 2009; trial held Mar 9, 2011 and May 9, 2011; judgment entered May 9, 2011.
- Wife moved to reconsider the child support order on May 24, 2011; motion to reconsider denied on Aug 26, 2011.
- Form 14 and child support calculations were at issue, including Line 11 overnight stays credit, Line 6a(ii) childcare credit, and extraordinary expenses.
- Wife appeals alleging five issues: Line 11 credit, childcare credit, extraordinary expenses, tax exemptions declarations, and Form 14 unjust/inappropriate findings; court affirms in part and reverses/remands in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 11 overnight stay credit improper | Wife's income imputed too low; caveat prevents credit for Husband. | Husband contends Wife is underemployed, warranting credit for overnight stays. | Credit improper; remand for recalculation |
| Childcare tax credit against Wife's expenses | Credit should not offset Wife's work-related childcare if Husband claims exemptions. | Publication 503 supports the credit; exemptions do not bar credit. | Credit properly applied; denial of error |
| Extraordinary expenses not included | Wife incurs at least $200/month in extraordinary expenses; should be included. | Court has discretion to include or exclude extraordinary expenses. | Court did not abuse discretion; expenses excluded |
| Tax exemptions and declaration under 26 U.S.C. § 152(e) | Court must require custodial parent to sign declaration; must specify form. | Court order sufficiently references § 152(e) declaration requirement. | No error; order sufficiently conveyed obligation |
| Form 14 unjust/inappropriate finding | Court should explicitly find Form 14 unjust or inappropriate to award exemptions. | Rule 88.01 findings and language suffice; failure to amend waived by not moving. | Waived; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 586 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for family law matters)
- Peniston v. Peniston, 161 S.W.3d 428 (Mo.App.2005) (imputation of income and Line 11 credit considerations)
- Nevins v. Green, 317 S.W.3d 691 (Mo.App.2010) (Rule 78.07(c) preservation and findings regarding Form 14)
- Pickering v. Pickering, 314 S.W.3d 822 (Mo.App.2010) (discretion to include extraordinary expenses in Form 14)
- Foraker v. Foraker, 133 S.W.3d 84 (Mo.App.2004) (reasonableness and non-redundancy of extraordinary costs)
- Talley v. Bulen, 193 S.W.3d 881 (Mo.App.2006) (use of 'unjust or inappropriate' language in findings)
- Crow v. Crow, 300 S.W.3d 561 (Mo.App.2009) (preservation of error and post-trial motions for findings)
- Day v. State, 143 S.W.3d 690 (Mo.App.2004) (statutory interpretation for order construction)
- Prins v. Director of Revenue, 333 S.W.3d 17 (Mo.App.2010) (interpretation of orders under statutory guidelines)