Scobee Ex Rel. Roberts v. Scobee
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 293
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mother and Father had a 14-year relationship resulting in one son born in 1998; paternity suit filed May 2010 with requests for custody, child support, retroactive support, and fees; trial court found Father is biological father, awarded joint custody with Son primarily living with Mother, and awarded Father a tax exemption while setting child support at $750/month and denying retroactive support and fees; on remand, court adopted Mother's Form 14 PCSA of $1,214 but found it unjust and inappropriate due to Mother’s underemployment; ultimately remanded for reformulation of PCSA and potential rebuttal; Mother challenges all post-judgment rulings; appellate court reverses on child support and tax exemption, remands for proper Form 14 calculation, and affirms others as to extent appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child support award complies with Woolridge procedure | Scobee argues Father’s actual income is high ($69,112.57) vs. Mother’s unemployment; PCSA under Woolridge should reflect imputed income. | Roberts contends Form 14 calculations and rebuttal support the award. | Remanded to adopt proper Form 14 PCSA; reverse prior award for proper calculation. |
| Whether retroactive child support should be awarded | Mother contends retroactive support is warranted given low Form 14 income. | Father argues discretion supports denial given prior voluntary payments. | Affirmed denial of retroactive support. |
| Whether attorney's fees should be awarded to Mother | Weight of evidence shows disparity in means favors award of fees. | Court may consider merits and conduct; discretion favors denial. | Affirmed denial of attorney's fees. |
| Whether Father may claim Son as dependent for tax purposes | Custodial parent (Mother) should claim dependent; Form 14 assumed tax exemptions go with support. | Noncustodial parent may be entitled if PCSA rebutted appropriately. | Reversed pending remand; tax dependency issue to be decided after proper child support order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woolridge v. Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d 372 (Mo.App.1996) (two-step Woolridge procedure for child support awards; PCSA calculation required)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.banc 1976) (standard for reviewing trial court decisions)
- Ricklefs v. Ricklefs, 39 S.W.3d 865 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (PCSA determination and Form 14 adherence)
- Cross v. Cross, 318 S.W.3d 187 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (imputation factors for income in Form 14; underemployment context)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 195 S.W.3d 502 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (form 14 calculations; rejection if errors in items or math)
- Estrem v. Estrem, 984 S.W.2d 883 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (Form 14 requires consideration of parental income for combined figures)
- Lokeman v. Flattery, 146 S.W.3d 422 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (imputing income based on ability and community opportunities)
- Peniston v. Peniston, 161 S.W.3d 428 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (five factors guiding imputation; not exhaustive)
- Vendegna v. Vendegna, 125 S.W.3d 911 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (dependency exemptions tied to Form 14 and support order)
- Jarvis v. Jarvis, 131 S.W.3d 894 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (dependency deductions; need to rebut PCSA before noncustodian gets exemption)
- Mehra v. Mehra, 819 S.W.2d 351 (Mo.banc 1991) (custodial parent generally claims tax dependency unless written declaration shifts to noncustodian)