Scott E. Courtney v. Terresa Kay Courtney, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 280
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Scott (Father) and Terresa Courtney (Mother) divorced in 2010; the decree awarded joint legal custody, Mother residential parent, Father limited visitation, $6,000/mo spousal maintenance to Mother and child support to Mother; Father had documented alcohol problems and was ordered to undergo evaluation.
- Father later moved to modify custody and sought child support after job loss; Mother filed to relocate the children to Michigan and for contempt for unpaid support/maintenance.
- Trial occurred Feb–Mar 2012; key evidence included Dr. Orlovick’s 2011 evaluation of Father (alcohol abuse), Mother’s trial testimony and Exhibit QQ (monthly expenses), and testimony about employment changes; no new evidence was admitted after trial.
- The court issued a July 29, 2013 judgment, then an Amended Judgment on Aug. 7, 2013 that (1) modified custody and purported to adopt a parenting plan but failed to attach it, (2) granted Mother’s relocation to Michigan, (3) reduced maintenance to $4,500/mo and left child support figures unchanged, and (4) found Father in contempt and awarded $7,500 in attorneys’ fees.
- The interval between trial and the Amended Judgment exceeded 17 months; Mother filed motions to reopen the record which were denied; both parties appealed various aspects of the Amended Judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father unless noted) | Defendant's Argument (Mother unless noted) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to attach specific written parenting plan to Amended Judgment | Trial court failed statutory requirement (Section 452.375.9); plan must be attached | Parenting plan terms are in the record / unchanged from prior judgment; court intended to adopt it | Reversed as to Parenting Plan—Amended Judgment lacked required specific written parenting plan and cannot be supplemented from record |
| Custody modification based on stale evidence (17-month delay) | Delay made evidence outdated, preventing determination of children’s current best interests | Any delay was harmless; Father not prejudiced | Reversed custody modification and remanded—reliance on stale evidence prejudiced Father because alcohol evidence was central |
| Relocation to Michigan; timeliness of Father’s objection | Objection to relocation was timely (filed within 30 days of notice); trial court erred finding it untimely | Despite procedural error, Father had full opportunity to litigate; relocation was in children’s best interests | Affirmed relocation—court erred on timeliness but Father had full hearing and relocation was supported by substantial evidence |
| Modification of maintenance and child support (and inclusion of child expenses in maintenance) | Court relied on stale financial data and improperly included child expenses in maintenance; maintenance should be terminated or recalculated | Court’s modifications supported by evidence at trial; figures reflect parties’ circumstances | Reversed modification of maintenance and child support and remanded—judgment relied on impermissibly stale evidence, included improper child-related expenses, and lacked an updated Form 14 |
| Award of attorneys’ fees in contempt proceeding | (Father) Challenges attorneys’ fee award | (Mother) Seeks enforcement and clarity of contempt findings | Fee award affirmed on appealability grounds—trial court has inherent authority to assess attorneys’ fees in civil contempt and did not abuse discretion; contempt order itself not yet final/enforceable so related appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for judge-tried cases)
- Searcy v. Searcy, 38 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (stale evidence can prevent determination of children’s current best interests)
- Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (trial court must consider parties’ current financial resources when awarding maintenance)
- McCallum v. McCallum, 128 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (reversal required where maintenance/fee awards were based on stale evidence)
- Schubert v. Schubert, 366 S.W.3d 55 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (maintenance is distinct from child support; child-related expenses should not be included in maintenance)
- Bruns v. Bruns, 186 S.W.3d 449 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (trial court’s inherent power permits assessing attorneys’ fees in civil contempt cases)
- Burch v. Burch, 805 S.W.2d 341 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (judgments conditioned on future events can be void and unenforceable)
- Fohey v. Knickerbocker, 130 S.W.3d 730 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (burden on relocating parent to prove good faith and best interests)
- Henry v. Henry, 353 S.W.3d 368 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (timely objection must be given a stay; harmless error when party had full opportunity to litigate relocation)