Pecher v. Pecher
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 525
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Marriage of Father and Mother; two children: Son (19) and Daughter (16).
- Dissolution filed 2010; trial held Oct 5, 2011; judgment entered Dec 16, 2011.
- Mother awarded sole custody; Father received one overnight visit every other weekend; alcohol issues alleged.
- Marital home valued by court at $80,000 (awarded to Mother) with $40,000 equalization to Father.
- Child support set by court’s Form 14; arrearage and attorney’s fees awarded; this appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property division valuation dispute | Father contends home valued too high by Mother; ignores appraiser | Court may value property using evidence and is not bound to expert appraisals | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion; substantial evidence supported $80,000 value |
| Attorneys’ fees award | Award unsupported by substantial evidence; no basis in record | Court has broad discretion; misconduct can justify fees | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| College-enrollment exception for Son | Son not enrolled by Oct 1; college exception does not apply | liberal construction; temporary delay due to National Guard and future enrollment | Denied; college exception applied; Father responsible for Son's support until emancipation |
| Overnight visitation credit and income calculation | Form 14 lacked overnight credit; Mother’s income mis-stated | Parenting plan yields 37–38 overnights; discrepancies treated under Rule 84.14 | Granted in part; revised child support to $729/mo for two children; arrearage adjusted to $8,019; other aspects affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Quilty v. Fischer, 393 S.W.3d 130 (Mo.App. W.D.2013) (trial court has broad discretion in valuing marital property)
- Foster v. Foster, 149 S.W.3d 575 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (owner may testify as to value; court may weigh evidence flexibly)
- Dowell v. Dowell, 203 S.W.3d 271 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (trial court may disbelieve expert valuation; deference to trial court’s credibility)
- Franke v. Franke, 913 S.W.2d 846 (Mo.App. E.D.1995) (income misstatement deemed de minimis in some cases)
- Miller v. Miller, 184 S.W.3d 174 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (6% deviation not de minimis when substantial)