Marriage of Noland-Vance v. Vance
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 611
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Six children born of marriage; July 2007 dissolution allocated custody and child support between parents.
- Elise (born Feb. 1989) and Deanie (born June 1990) were deemed emancipated and were Mother’s custody; Father owed support for Elise and Deanie.
- Three younger children were Father’s custody; Mother owed support for those three, offset against Elise/Deanie support.
- April 2008 motion to declare Daughters emancipated based on alleged lack of information about their status and schooling.
- July 2008 hearing reviewed records; Mother produced limited materials (Exhibit 1) concerning Elise and Deanie; records lacked transcripts/grades.
- December 12, 2008, the trial court emancipated Elise and Deanie for noncompliance with § 452.340.5, leading to termination of Father’s support obligation for Daughters
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether documents complied with § 452.340.5 | Noland-Vance contends documents substantially complied | Vance argues records were not official transcripts/adequate documents | No; noncompliant documents supported termination |
| Whether termination or mere abatement of child support was proper | Noland-Vance argues abatement only for fall term | Vance contends 2007 amendment allows termination for noncompliance | Termination permitted; trial court could terminate |
| Proper application of amended § 452.340.5 post-2007 changes | Noland-Vance asserts amendment allows termination for failure to provide documents | Vance maintains no termination unless meeting criteria | Amendment allows termination, not just abatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Kreutzer v. Kreutzer, 147 S.W.3d 173 (Mo.App.2004) (interpretation of 452.340.5 for continued education-based support)
- Wiest v. Wiest, 273 S.W.3d 545 (Mo.App.2008) (requirements for a transcript/official document and timely disclosure)
- Shands v. Shands, 237 S.W.3d 597 (Mo.App.2007) (abated vs terminated support prior to amendment)
- Windsor v. Windsor, 166 S.W.3d 623 (Mo.App.2005) (timeliness and sufficiency of documentation)
- Scott v. Clanton, 113 S.W.3d 207 (Mo.App.2003) (burden of proof on the party seeking termination/abatement)
- Peine v. Peine, 200 S.W.3d 567 (Mo.App.2006) (timeliness considerations for documentation)
- Ray Klein, Inc. v. Kerr, 272 S.W.3d 896 (Mo.App. 2008) (evidentiary credibility in appellate review)
- Dolence v. Dolence, 231 S.W.3d 331 (Mo.App.2007) (standard of review for court-tried cases)