midpage
Projects
Sign in to see your projects.
437 S.W.3d 404
Mo. Ct. App.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Mother appeals the trial court's amended judgment of modification entered May 22, 2013.
  • The trial court prepared its own Form 14 using Mother's gross income of $1,035 and Father's of $3,000, with Line 2(c)(i)=0 and Line 2(c)(ii)= $595, and no Line 6(a) work-related childcare adjustment.
  • The August 6, 2013 amended judgment granted joint physical and legal custody to Father, with Mother's address for mailing and educational purposes, and set child support at $470.
  • Prior paternity order (2009) required Father to pay $156/month and granted him no visitation.
  • Trial occurred April 17, 2013; Father testified about a new child on the way; Mother testified about employment and childcare costs; Child would start kindergarten in the fall reducing daycare needs.
  • Court of Appeals reverses and remands for recalculation of Form 14 Line 2(c) and Line 11; other aspects affirmed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Form 14 Line 2(c) adjustment improper Williams argues Line 2(c)(ii) should be zero. Jones contends Line 2(c)(ii) reflects shared custody effects. Line 2(c)(ii) miscalculated; credit should be zero.
Line 6(a) work-related childcare adjustment supported by substantial evidence Williams asserts no substantial evidence supports excluding childcare costs. Jones asserts evidence supports excluding costs due to upcoming school start. Not error; substantial evidence supports exclusion.
Line 11 overnight adjustment improper given income Williams argues no overnight credit due to income below threshold. Jones argues Line 11 credit appropriate with overnight custody. Line 11 adjustment improper; no overnight credit given income <$1,350.

Key Cases Cited

  • Woolridge v. Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d 372 (Mo.App.W.D.1996) (prescribes Form 14 calculation and unjust/inappropriate amount review)
  • Samples v. Kouts, 954 S.W.2d 59B (Mo.App.W.D.1997) (rejects incorrect Form 14 items or math errors)
  • Cross v. Cross, B18 S.W.3d 187 (Mo.App.W.D.2010) (Line 2(c) other-children credit guidance)
  • Harrison v. Harrison, 871 S.W.2d 644 (Mo.App.S.D.1994) (Form 14 work-related childcare allocation guidance)
  • Adams v. Adams, 414 S.W.3d 29 (Mo.App.S.D.2013) (Line 11 overnight credit threshold for income)
  • J.A.R. v. D.G.R., 426 S.W.3d 624 (Mo.banc 2014) (substantial evidence standard in family‑law determinations)
  • Lagermann v. Lagermann, 109 S.W.3d 239 (Mo.App.E.D.2003) (formula interpretation in Form 14 calculations)
  • Heckman v. Heckman, 422 S.W.3d 336 (Mo.App.W.D.2013) (review of Form 14 calculations for mathematical accuracy)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: M.L.R. ex rel. Ruark v. Jones
Court Name: Missouri Court of Appeals
Date Published: Aug 1, 2014
Citations: 437 S.W.3d 404; 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 824; 2014 WL 3778172; No. SD 32904
Docket Number: No. SD 32904
Court Abbreviation: Mo. Ct. App.
Log In