Carlson v. Carlson
| Decision Date | 23 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 68783.,WD 68783. |
| Citation | 275 S.W.3d 356 |
| Parties | Catherine D. CARLSON, Respondent, v. Timothy R. CARLSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Dennis J. Owens, Jonathan Sternberg, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Ann Kern, Springfield, MO, for respondent.
Before THOMAS H. NEWTON, C.J., and VICTOR C. HOWARD and ALOK AHUJA, JJ.
Appellant Timothy Carlson ("Father") appeals from a decree dissolving his marriage to Respondent Catherine Carlson ("Mother"), as well as the circuit court's award of sanctions to Mother. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in substantial part, but reverse and remand to permit the trial court to modify its judgment in certain limited respects.
The parties were married on or about July 26, 1998. Father and Mother had two children together: Hayden, born February 20, 1999, and Hannah, born October 15, 2001.
On December 15, 2005, Mother filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in the Circuit Court of Miller County. Father filed a Counter-Petition on December 28. Among other things, Father's Counter-Petition alleged that Mother "is an alcoholic and has emotionally abused [Father] and the minor children," "abandons said children for long periods of time so she can spend time carousing [and] consuming alcohol," and "has physically abused the minor children" by failing to attend to their medical needs in a timely fashion. The Counter-Petition also alleged that Father "provides all of the care, feeding and support" for the children.
On January 3, 2006, the circuit court entered a memorandum of temporary custody, granting the parties joint legal and physical custody and Mother exclusive possession of the marital home, and stating that the parties had stipulated to the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the children. An Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem was entered the same day. On August 10, 2006, Mother filed a First Amended Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Father answered the Amended Petition on August 18.
On January 23, 2006, Mother served Father's counsel with a Motion for Sanctions, which argued that the allegations in Father's Counter-Petition described above were "blatantly false, and in some instances, slanderous," were made without good-faith basis, and "will serve only to delay the finalization of this case and increase the cost of litigation." Mother's Motion for Sanctions was subsequently filed with the trial court on July 6, 2006, and was originally noticed to be heard on July 13. Hearing on the Motion for Sanctions was continued or reset at least four times; Mother formally re-noticed the Motion for hearing on at least one of those occasions. Ultimately, the parties agreed on December 14, 2006, that Mother's Motion for Sanctions, as well as other pending matters requiring evidence, would be passed and taken up with the case during trial.
Although we need not detail these events given the issues raised on appeal, even Father's briefing acknowledges that his behavior during the pendency of the dissolution was frequently inappropriate, threatening, and emotionally abusive. Much of this behavior occurred in front of the children. In one incident (as described in Father's brief) he "became enraged and began to scream profanities" at the guardian ad litem over the telephone, in the children's presence. As a result, the guardian ad litem obtained an order of protection against Father in October 2006, which prevented him from having contact with the children; that order remained in place for more than two months.
The case was tried before the circuit court beginning on February 1, 2007. The trial court entered its Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage on June 1, 2007. Mother was awarded sole legal custody, with the parties sharing joint physical custody. Father was ordered to pay child support, including one-half of certain costs for the children's college education. The circuit court's Judgment required Father to pay all of the guardian ad litem's fees and imposed an attorney's lien for the collection of such fees upon Father's option to purchase a 20% share in Carlson Inspection Associates, L.L.C. (a company owned by his father, and for which Father currently works). The circuit court also imposed sanctions against Father, ordering him to pay $15,000 of Mother's attorney's fees. This appeal follows.
In this dissolution action we "`review the judgment of the trial court under the standard of review applicable to any other court-tried case.'" Reynolds v. Reynolds, 109 S.W.3d 258, 267 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (citation omitted). Thus, we must affirm unless the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
In his first Point, Father argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $15,000 of Mother's $18,000 in attorney's fees as sanctions.
In a four-page discussion in its Judgment, the trial court found that the allegations in Father's Counter-Petition described above were "blatantly false," "unsubstantiated" and "mean spirited," "aimed at vexing and harassing [Mother]," and that "[Father]'s false allegations were not made upon any good faith basis, but rather were a blatant attempt by [Father] to falsely demean, impugn and assassinate [Mother]'s character." The trial court concluded that "[t]he false allegations appear to be part of a considered strategy by [Father] to destroy [Mother]'s life." For these reasons, the trial court found
that sanctions against [Father], via both its inherent powers and by virtue of Supreme Court Rule 55.03(b)(1) and (3) are appropriate. Such sanctions include an award of attorney fees. [Mother] incurred $18,000.00 of attorney fees through the trial. While there are costs with any litigation, the Court finds the majority of fees and expenses incurred by [Mother] were related to defending against the false allegations made by [Father], and responding to [Father]'s egregious behavior and conduct during these proceedings. The Court, on the basis of its inherent powers and Supreme Court Rule 55.03(b)(1) and (3), should award [Mother] judgment in the amount of $15,000 against [Father] for her attorney fees herein expended.
Where "a party's claims are initiated frivolously or brought in bad faith," Rule 55.031 authorizes the trial court "to impose sanctions as a deterrent to similar conduct in the future and to recompense the other party." Robin Farms, Inc. v. Beeler, 991 S.W.2d 182, 186 (Mo.App. W.D.1999).2 The purpose of awarding attorney's fees and costs as sanctions is "to compensate the opposing party for the cost of defending against the baseless motion or pleading." Noland v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 853 S.W.2d 327, 330 (Mo.App. W.D.1993).
The trial court's imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 55.03 will be affirmed "unless the court abused its discretion in doing so." Robin Farms, 991 S.W.2d at 186. "An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's order is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration." Long v. Cross Reporting Serv., Inc., 103 S.W.3d 249, 254 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (quoting Brown v. Kirkham, 23 S.W.3d 880, 882-83 (Mo.App. W.D.2000)).
Father's only complaint as to the sanctions award is the claim that he did not have sufficient notice that the trial was the hearing on Mother's Motion for Sanctions, and/or that he did not have an opportunity to defend himself against the Motion. The record belies that claim.
More specifically, Mother served her Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 55.03 on Father on January 23, 2006. As required by the Rule, the Motion was not filed until July 6, more than 30 days after it was served. The Motion was at least twice specifically noticed for hearing. And after being reset or continued on multiple occasions, the parties eventually agreed on December 14, 2006, that "Ms. Carlson's Motion for Sanctions ... [would be] passed and taken with the case at trial," a fact Father's briefing specifically acknowledges. Trial was held beginning February 1, 2007, almost a year after Father was served with Mother's Motion for Sanctions, and over two months after the parties' specific agreement that it would be passed and taken up during trial.
Evidence at trial established the lack of a factual basis for the challenged allegations of Father's Counter-Petition (a conclusion he does not dispute here). Two on-the-record exchanges occurred which related specifically to Mother's Motion for Sanctions, and the fees she sought thereunder. During the first, on the fourth day of trial, Mother's counsel asked Mother the amount of her attorney's fees, and had her confirm that she was asking the court to award them as sanctions. Father's counsel raised no objection. During the second, on the final day of trial, Father's counsel objected to questions asking Mother to update the total amount of her fees, on the basis that "they did not ask for the attorneys' fees in either their original petition or their amended petition and, therefore, it's irrelevant." The objection was overruled. At the conclusion of this exchange the court observed that the parties' proposed findings could address whether Mother's fees were attributable to "the grounds ... set forth in [her] motion for sanctions."
Although the Motion for Sanctions was clearly at issue at trial (per the parties' agreement), at no point did Father: introduce any evidence, testimony, or arguments regarding the issue; cross-examine Mother as to the amount or nature of the attorney's fees she sought; or make...
To continue reading
Request your trial