Cox v. Cox

Decision Date29 August 2012
Docket NumberNo. SD 31255.,SD 31255.
Citation384 S.W.3d 298
PartiesPaula G. COX, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Lanny C. COX, Respondent–Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

James L. Thomas, Waynesville, MO, for Appellant.

Kimberly F. Lowe, Waynesville, MO, for Respondent.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J.

Lanny Cox (Father) appeals from a judgment terminating the obligation of Paula Cox (Mother) to pay child support for Lyle Cox (Son). The trial court terminated Mother's child support obligation on the ground that Son was statutorily emancipated due to his failure to complete sufficient credit hours and achieve sufficient grades to reenroll at Missouri State University (MSU). We affirm.

Son was born on July 12, 1989, during the parties' marriage. In August 1998, the parties' marriage was dissolved. When the original dissolution judgment was entered,neither party was ordered to pay child support to the other.

Thereafter, Father and Mother each filed motions to modify the judgment. The modification judgment ordered Mother to pay child support to Father pursuant to the provisions of a joint parenting plan, which the court reviewed, approved and incorporated by reference into the judgment. The joint parenting plan contained the following child support provisions that are relevant to this appeal:

C. Educational Expenses. In addition to child support obligations, each parent shall pay 50% of the cost each year for [Son] attending a post-secondary college, university, or vocational-technical school, state or private, subject to the following limitations:

1. The child must comply with all Missouri statutory requirements for the continuation of child support past the child's 18th birthday in effect at the time of the child's 18th birthday in order to qualify for the parents to pay post-secondary educational expenses, including, but not limited to, requirements as to the date post-secondary education must commence, the number of hours of study required and other requirements.

2. The child must also comply throughout the time of attendance at a post-secondary institution with all Missouri statutory requirements for the continuation of child support past the child's 18th birthday and while in an institution of post-secondary education in order to remain eligible for the parents to continue to pay post-secondary educational expenses.

...

5. The child must carry at least the minimum number of credit hours each semester, not including the summer semester, which, according to the institution the child attends, constitutes a full load.

...

7. Neither parent shall be responsible for paying for more than eight semesters at a college or university.

8. This obligation shall terminate when the child reaches age 22 or becomes emancipated, except that if the child turns 22 during or just prior to the seventh or eighth semester, the obligation will continue in order to allow the child to complete the full eight semesters of education. Under no circumstances shall the obligation continue after the child reaches age 23.

Son graduated from high school in 2008. In the fall of 2008, he attended the University of Central Missouri (UCM). He enrolled in seven classes totaling 12 hours of credit at UCM. He received passing grades in all seven classes and received 12 hours of credit for the Fall 2008 semester. His semester grade point average (GPA) was 2.75.

Son then transferred to MSU. During the Spring 2009 semester at MSU, Son enrolled in six classes totaling 14 hours of credit. Son received passing grades in three classes and earned eight hours of credit. He failed two classes which would have provided four credit hours, and he received an “N” in one class which would have provided two hours of credit. His semester GPA was 1.78, and he was placed on academic probation.

During the summer of 2009, Son enrolled in three classes totaling seven hours of credit. He received passing grades in all three classes and earned seven hours of credit. His semester GPA was 1.57. Son continued to be on academic probation.

During the Fall 2009 semester, Son enrolled in four classes totaling 13 hours of credit. Son received passing grades in three classes and earned 10 hours of credit. He failed one class which would have provided three hours of credit. His semester GPA was 2.30. He was placed on academic suspension.

During the Spring 2010 semester, Son enrolled in five classes totaling 12 hours of credit. He received passing grades in four classes and earned nine hours of credit. He failed one class which would have provided three hours of credit. His semester GPA was 1.51, and he continued to be on academic suspension.

As of June 2010, Son had 38 GPA hours of college credit at MSU, and his cumulative GPA at that institution was 1.79. Son also received 12 hours of transfer credit for the courses he took at UCM. His combined GPA from both universities was 2.02.

On July 15, 2010, MSU adopted a new academic status policy which stated, in relevant part, as follows:

The following policy is effective for the fall 2010 semester and future semesters and applies to undergraduate students based on their undergraduate grade point averages (GPA).*

Good Standing

A student who has both a cumulative Missouri State and a combined (Missouri State and transfer) GPA of at least 2.00 is considered to be in good standing. Students not in good standing will be placed on academic probation or suspension.

Probation

Any student with a cumulative Missouri State or a combined GPA of less than 2.00 is on probation unless placed on academic suspension (see below). The purpose of academic probation is to remind students that the quality of their cumulative academic work is unsatisfactory. Students on probation must have an advisor release prior to registering for classes....

Suspension

A student who enters a semester on academic probation and fails to earn a semester GPA of 2.00 or higher will be suspended.... After an initial suspension, students must remain out for at least one full semester (not including summer) to be eligible for reinstatement. Students who have been suspended two or more times must remain out for at least one full year prior to being eligible for reinstatement.

Reinstatement

Reinstatement procedures are determined by the deans and the Office of Admissions. Information regarding the procedure is available from the Office of Admissions. Reinstatement is not an automatic process. Students must be approved for reinstatement by the dean of the college under which they plan to return.

*Students whose last semester of attendance was prior to fall 2010 should refer to the catalog in effect for that semester.

During the Summer 2010 semester, Son attended Ozarks Technical College (OTC). In July 2010, Mother filed an affidavit requesting that her child support obligation be terminated. See § 452.340.11.1 The affidavit stated that Son failed to achieve sufficient grades to reenroll at MSU and failed to complete at least 12 credit hours per semester at that institution. Father's objection to the termination request brought the issue before the trial court. See § 452.340.11(4).

During the Fall 2010 semester, Son attended Evangel University. In October 2010, a hearing was held on Mother's termination request. At that hearing, the parties' attorneys stipulated that Son was over the age of 18. His transcript from MSU was admitted in evidence. The court made a docket entry abating Mother's child support payments, but it left the record open for Father's attorney to present additional evidence.

In January 2011, the trial court conducted a second hearing on Mother's termination request. Six exhibits were admitted in evidence during the hearing.2 These exhibits included Son's MSU transcript, the July 2010 MSU Academic Status policy, Son's OTC transcript and his Evangel transcript.

In March 2011, the trial court entered a judgment terminating Mother's child support obligation. The court found, inter alia, that Son was statutorily emancipated because: (1) he failed to complete at least 12 hours of credit per semester during the Spring 2009, Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 semesters; and (2) he failed to achieve grades sufficient to reenroll at MSU during the Fall 2010 semester. Father appealed from the judgment and presents three points for decision.

In this court-tried case, our review is governed by Rule 84.13(d) and the principles set out in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We must affirm the trial court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.” Salem United Methodist Church v. Bottorff, 138 S.W.3d 788, 789–90 (Mo.App.2004). As the party challenging the judgment, Father bears the burden of demonstrating error. Elrod v. Elrod, 192 S.W.3d 738, 740 (Mo.App.2006). This Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom in a light most favorable to the prevailing party; contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded. Vanderpool v. Vanderpool, 250 S.W.3d 791, 795 (Mo.App.2008). We also defer to the trial court's determination as to the believability and weight of the evidence presented. In re Marriage of Dolence, 231 S.W.3d 331, 333–34 (Mo.App.2007); Youngberg v. Youngberg, 194 S.W.3d 886, 889 (Mo.App.2006). We review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo.Braddy v. Braddy, 326 S.W.3d 567, 570–71 (Mo.App.2010).

Point I

In Father's first point, he contends the trial court misapplied the law by concluding that Son was statutorily emancipated. Father argues that: (1) the trial court erroneously believed that it was compelled by the language in § 452.340.5 to terminate Son's child support; (2) Son made extraordinary efforts to pursue a higher education commensurate with his academic abilities; and (3) the trial court's ruling ignored the parties' agreement in the parenting plan to extend the support obligation. We will address...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Daniels v. Yasa
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 3 Diciembre 2021
    ...Yasa bears the burden of proving that Joshua failed to meet the statutory requirements for continuing support. See Cox v. Cox , 384 S.W.3d 298, 303 (Mo. App. 2012).Missouri law also imposes reporting requirements on the child. Halper v. Halper , 604 S.W.3d 904, 910-11 (Mo. App. 2020). Speci......
  • Daniels v. Yasa
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 3 Diciembre 2021
    ...2004). Yasa bears the burden of proving that Joshua failed to meet the statutory requirements for continuing support. See Cox v. Cox, 384 S.W.3d 298, 303 (Mo. App. 2012). Missouri law also imposes reporting requirements on the child. Halper v. Halper, 604 S.W.3d 904, 910-11 (Mo. App. 2020).......
  • Daniels v. Yasa
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 3 Diciembre 2021
    ...2004). Yasa bears the burden of proving that Joshua failed to meet the statutory requirements for continuing support. See Cox v. Cox, 384 S.W.3d 298, 303 (Mo. App. 2012). Missouri law also imposes reporting requirements on the child. Halper v. Halper, 604 S.W.3d 904, 910-11 (Mo. App. 2020).......
  • Halper v. Halper
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 14 Julio 2020
    ...[Section] 452.340.5 liberally to be consistent with the public policy of promoting the pursuit of higher education." Cox v. Cox , 384 S.W.3d 298, 304 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (quoting Pickens v. Brown , 147 S.W.3d 89, 92 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) ). However, when the language of a statute is clear a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT