Craig v. Craig

Decision Date03 May 2022
Docket NumberWD 84571
Parties Lacy Anne CRAIG, Respondent, v. Cory Wayne CRAIG, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Jonathan Sternberg, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Respondent.

Cory Wayne Craig, La Plata, MO, Appellant, pro se.

Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., and Thomas N. Chapman, Judges

Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge

Cory Craig (Husband) appeals from the trial court's dissolution judgment. Husband raises six points on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) ordering child support for two children because the oldest child failed to comply with § 452.340.5;1 (2) ordering support for the oldest child because she failed to comply with § 452.340.5; (3) failing to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL); (4) ordering retroactive child support for extraordinary expenses and back support because the oldest child failed to comply with § 452.340.5; (5) offsetting Lacy Craig's (Wife) assets with credit card debt; and (6) dividing the property in a manner that was neither equitable nor fair. Finding no error, we affirm.

Background

Husband and Wife were married on June 1, 1996, and had two children born of the marriage: M.C. (born 3/16/2000) and C.C. (born 6/16/2003). The parties separated on January 9, 2019. At the time, M.C. was 18 years old and had been enrolled as a student at the University of Missouri since August of 2018. Wife filed a petition for dissolution on June 5, 2019. In the petition, Wife sought sole legal and physical custody of C.C. (the only child under the age of 18) with visitation to Husband at C.C.’s discretion, given her mature age (nearly 16 at the time of filing). Wife also sought child support, extraordinary expenses, and post-secondary educational expenses for the children.

On November 18, 2019, Wife filed a motion for temporary child support and other costs. The court granted her motion on July 10, 2020, ordering Husband to pay temporary child support in the amount of $1,149.00 per month. Thereafter, Husband filed a motion to reconsider the award of temporary child support payments, arguing that, in calculating the amount, the trial court disregarded contributions made by Husband for the financial support of the children; he raised no other claims of error.

The court held a bifurcated trial, deciding on dissolution, the parenting plan, child support and expenses in the first phase and dividing assets and debts in the second phase. The court awarded sole legal and physical custody of C.C. to Wife and ordered Husband to pay $1,149.00 per month in child support going forward and $14,937.00 in retroactive support for June 2019 through June 2020. The court noted that, when M.C. was either emancipated or reached the age of 21 (whichever came first), Husband's monthly child support obligation would drop to $824.00. The court further ordered Husband to pay $6,784.25 to Wife for extraordinary expenses for the children, after crediting Husband for payments he made on car loans and insurance. After dividing the personal property and real estate, the court ordered Husband to make an equalization payment to Wife in the amount of $48,327.72. Husband appeals.

Standard of Review

"On review of a court-tried case, [we will] affirm the circuit court's judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law." Aldrich v. Aldrich , 637 S.W.3d 485, 489 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting ADB Cos. v. Socket Telecom, LLC , 618 S.W.3d 237, 244 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) ). "[T]he trial court's judgment is presumed valid and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate its incorrectness." Houston v. Crider , 317 S.W.3d 178, 186 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (quoting Bowles v. All Cntys. Inv. Corp. , 46 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001) ).

Preservation

Rule 84.04(d)(1)2 provides that,

[w]here the appellate court reviews the decision of a trial court, each point shall:
(A) Identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges;
(B) State concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error ; and
(C) Explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.

(Emphasis added.) "Rule 84.04's requirements are mandatory." Lexow v. Boeing Co. , SC99199, 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc Mar. 15, 2022) (quoting Fowler v. Mo. Sheriffs’ Ret. Sys. , 623 S.W.3d 578, 583 (Mo. banc 2021) ).

Because "[w]e can reverse [a] court-tried judgment only if no substantial evidence supports it, or it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law," Kim v. Mercy Clinic Springfield Cmtys. , 556 S.W.3d 613, 617 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (quoting Hagan v. Hagan , 530 S.W.3d 608, 610 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017) ) (emphasis in original), to comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B), the appellant must specify one of these bases of error within the point relied on, itself. Id. ; Ebert v. Ebert , 627 S.W.3d 571, 580 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) ; Smith v. Great Am. Assur. Co. , 436 S.W.3d 700, 703-04 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014). At best, a point relied on that fails to do so "preserves nothing for appellate review." In re Swearingen , 42 S.W.3d 741, 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (quoting Smith v. Indep. Tax Increment Fin. Comm'n , 919 S.W.2d 292, 294 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) ). And, in fact, "[a] party's failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Rule 84.04(d) constitutes grounds for our dismissal of the appeal." In re Estate of Tuckness , 403 S.W.3d 597, 598 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011).

Nevertheless, where a point has not been properly preserved, we have discretion to review it for plain error under Rule 84.13. In re Swearingen , 42 S.W.3d at 746. But "[p]lain error review is proper in civil cases only if we find that ‘the error has affected the parties’ rights so substantially that a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice would occur if the error were left uncorrected.’ " Id. (quoting Peterson v. Nat'l Carriers, Inc. , 972 S.W.2d 349, 357 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) ).

Here, Husband's Point III is the only point relied on that raises one of the bases for reversing alleged error in a court-tried case. Though Points I and VI assert within the argument that the court misapplied the law, the points themselves do not contain similar assertions. "Arguments advanced in the brief but not raised in the point relied on are not preserved, and will not be addressed by this court." Ziade v. Quality Bus. Sols., Inc. , 618 S.W.3d 537, 544 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting Burg v. Dampier , 346 S.W.3d 343, 354 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) ) (point relied on argued erroneous application of law but argument claimed lack of substantial evidence to support the judgment).

We recognize the challenges Husband faces as a pro se litigant on appeal. But "[s]elf-represented litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys; thus, self-represented litigants must comply with Missouri Court Rules, including Rule 84.04." In re Estate of Tuckness , 403 S.W.3d at 598. And "we cannot give preferential treatment to non-lawyers." Id. "It is not for lack of sympathy, but rather is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties." Id. (quoting Duncan v. Duncan , 320 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) ).

Even beyond the deficiencies in the points relied on, Husband's Points I, II, IV, and VI suffer from additional preservation problems. Points I, II, and IV all argue essentially the same issue—to receive support payments, M.C. was required by § 452.340.5 to provide Husband with certain information; she failed to do so; and, therefore, the court erred in ordering Husband to pay any support for M.C. Though Husband is correct that § 452.340.5 requires a child enrolled in higher education to furnish certain documentation to the parent providing support in order to continue receiving support after the age of 18, a "claim that [a c]hild failed to comply with section 452.340.5 ... is an affirmative defense to the pleading." Brown v. Brown , 370 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (quoting Scott v. Clanton , 113 S.W.3d 207, 212 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) ). "Affirmative defenses must be pled, or they will generally be waived." Poger v. Mo. Dep't of Transp. , 501 S.W.3d 37, 43 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). And Husband, "as the party seeking to abate his child support obligation, bears the burden of raising this defense." Brown , 370 S.W.3d at 688 (quoting Scott , 113 S.W.3d at 212 ). It was neither Wife's nor M.C.’s burden to "first have asserted that [M.C.] had complied with the reporting requirements set forth in section 452.340.5." Scott , 113 S.W.3d at 211. Husband never pled noncompliance with the notification requirement of § 452.340.5 as an affirmative defense to a support obligation for M.C. Therefore, any claims based on the alleged noncompliance are waived.

In Point VI, Husband argues that the trial court failed to consider certain payments he made during the parties’ separation when the court divided the property and liabilities between the parties, thereby violating § 452.330. The allegation that the court failed to consider certain facts is tantamount to a claim that the court failed to make any findings about those facts. In re K.S. , 561 S.W.3d 399, 408 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). But, to preserve a claim of insufficient findings, a complaining party must file a post-judgment motion to amend under Rule 78.07(c).3 Husband filed no such motion. Thus his challenge to the court's findings is not preserved.

Therefore, as a result of both briefing deficiencies and omissions below, none of Husband's Points I, II, IV, V, or VI are preserved for review. And, because there appears to be no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulting from any of the alleged errors, we decline to engage in plain error review.

Points I, II, IV, V, and VI are denied.

Analysis

In Point III, Husband argues that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Kouadio-Tobey v. Div. of Emp't Sec.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 30 Agosto 2022
    ... ... are held to the same standards as attorneys, and their briefs ... must comply with Rule 84.04. Craig v. Craig, 644 ... S.W.3d 857, 861 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) ...          Claimant's ... brief does not comply with Rule 84.04 ... ...
  • Kouadio-Tobey v. Div. of Emp't Sec.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 30 Agosto 2022
    ... ... are held to the same standards as attorneys, and their briefs ... must comply with Rule 84.04. Craig v. Craig, 644 ... S.W.3d 857, 861 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) ...          Claimant's ... brief does not comply with Rule 84.04 ... ...
  • Kouadio-Tobey v. Div. of Emp't Sec.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 30 Agosto 2022
    ...litigants, like Claimant, are held to the same standards as attorneys, and their briefs must comply with Rule 84.04. Craig v. Craig , 644 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022). Claimant's brief does not comply with Rule 84.04 in several respects. We first note that Claimant's brief introduce......

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