Wood v. Wood
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1641
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mother and Father dissolved their marriage in 2008, with joint legal and joint physical custody and a detailed parenting plan.
- The original decree ordered Father to pay child support, maintenance, and approximately $145,000 for property/equity adjustments and fees.
- Guardian ad litem proposed a parenting plan leading to a trial-result custody arrangement; the court adopted the GAL plan.
- Contempt findings were entered in 2010 for overdue support and maintenance, resulting in incarcerations and later bond postings.
- In 2011, after Father proceeded pro se, the court modified custody to joint, adopted the GAL plan, and set new supporting amounts ($400/mo) and maintenance ($10/mo) effective Feb 24, 2010.
- Mother moved for amendments/new trial; the court denied by operation of law; Mother appealed challenging custody findings, missing parenting plan in the judgment, and support calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Written findings for custody changes | Mother argues no written change-of-circumstances findings were made. | Wood contends rule requires change-of-circumstances findings only where applicable; need not be detailed for custody. | Remand for written custody findings in compliance with §452.375.6. |
| Inclusion of parenting plan in judgment | Mother argues GAL parenting plan must be included in judgment. | Wood contends the plan was adopted but not attached as a formal plan in the judgment. | Remand to include the GAL parenting plan in the judgment. |
| Change of circumstances warranting modification | Mother asserts substantial/continuing change due to Father's income drop justifies modification. | Wood contends income drop was voluntary/foreseeable and not a continuing change. | Court did not err; substantial, continuing change found warranting modification. |
| Child support calculation and retroactivity | Mother asserts Form 14 and calculation not properly shown; retroactivity dates improper. | Wood argues court had discretion; retroactivity should reflect filing date and overnight adjustments. | Remand for explicit Form 14 findings and retroactivity date corrections; grant in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for dissolution modifications)
- Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte, 34 S.W.3d 387 (Mo. banc 2001) (recognizes modification standards and review)
- Hightower v. Myers, 304 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. banc 2010) (change-of-circumstances standard for custody modifications; no “substantial” change required)
- Russell v. Russell, 210 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. banc 2007) (reiterates custody modification standards for parenting-time rearrangements)
- Buchanan v. Buchanan, 167 S.W.3d 698 (Mo. banc 2005) (necessity of written findings on custody factors)
- Jones v. Jones, 277 S.W.3d 330 (Mo. App. 2009) (importance of discussing applicable §452.375.2 factors for custody)
- Crow v. Crow, 300 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. App. 2009) (record must show how Form 14 amount was arrived at)
- Meyers v. Meyers, 22 S.W.2d 853 (Mo. App. 1929) (pre-452.370.6 authority on maintenance modification)
- Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 913 S.W.2d 76 (Mo. App. 1995) (unpaid accrued installments and retroactivity considerations under §452.370.6)