Eidson v. Edison

• Decision Date: 19 October 1999
• Citation: Eidson v. Edison, 7 S.W.3d 495 (Mo. App. 1999)
• Parties: (Mo.App. W.D. 1999) Keann Finn Eidson, by his next friend and mother, Martha Webster, Appellant/Respondent, v. James Eidson, Respondent/Appellant. WD55581 and 55594
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

7 S.W.3d 495 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999)

Keann Finn Eidson, by his next friend and mother, Martha Webster, Appellant/Respondent, v. James Eidson, Respondent/Appellant.

WD55581 and 55594

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

10/19/99

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Christine Theresa Sill-Rogers

Counsel for Appellant: Sandra Carol Midkiff

Counsel for Respondent: Ralph Gregory Gore

Opinion Summary: Keann Finn Eidson, by his next friend and mother, appeals the trial court's judgment modifying child support.On appeal, the mother contends that the trial court erred in its Form 14 child support calculation in that it failed to include the costs of the child's immediate physical and medical needs.She also claims the trial court erred in failing to require the father to support the child to the extent that his means will allow after finding that he had income and assets sufficient to provide for the child's needs.The father cross appeals, contending the court erred in striking his pleadings, prohibiting him from introducing evidence, ordering him to pay all uninsured medical expenses, imputing income to him, and including the child's extraordinary medical expenses in calculating the presumed child support amount.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

Division IV holds:

(1) Where the mother was prejudiced by the father's refusal to submit documents appropriate for discovery and to submit himself for his deposition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions.

(2) Where trial court specifically found that due to his physical condition, the child has immediate physical and medical needs for a handicap conversion van, wheelchair, modifications to the mother's home and other extraordinary medical expenses but did not address whether or how the child's immediate physical and medical needs are to be met, the case is remanded to the court to enter a judgment that considers these needs.

Robert G. Ulrich, Judge

Keann Finn Eidson, by his next friend and mother, Martha Webster(Mother), appeals the trial court's Judgment Entry for Modification of Child Support.On appeal, Mother contends that the trial court erred in its Form 14 child support calculation in that it failed to include the costs of the child's immediate physical and medical needs.She also claims the trial court erred in failing to require James Eidson(Father), the father of the child, to support the child to the extent that his means will allow after finding that he had income and assets sufficient to provide for the child's needs.Father cross appeals contending the court erred in striking his pleadings and prohibiting him from introducing evidence, ordering him to pay all uninsured medical expenses, imputing income to him in the amount of $5,000 per month, and including extraordinary medical expenses of $775 per month in calculating the presumed child support amount.The case is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded to the trial court with directions to enter judgment that considers the child's immediate physical and medical needs consistent with this opinion.

Facts

This appeal arises from an amended judgment modifying child support for the disabled child of Mother and Father.Prior to the filing of the present action, Father was taken into custody on a Warrant of Commitment that had been issued because he was in arrears on his child support in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars.After a brief period of incarceration in Jackson County, Father was conditionally released and ordered to appear in Jackson County Circuit Court on May 13, 1997, to determine a method of purging his contempt of prior child support orders.He was also ordered to appear on June 9, 1997, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating previous child support orders.

Mother filed her First Amended Motion of Modification of Child Support, Attorneys Fees and Costs, Change of Name, and Petition for Judicial Review of Order from Department of Social Services on April 30, 1997, following Father's release.In the course of pursuing her Motion to Modify Child Support, Mother attempted to obtain discovery from Father.Father failed to produce requested records and failed to appear for the taking of his deposition.Mother, therefore, requested the imposition of sanctions against Father by the trial court.

The court entered an Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion of Enforcement of Discovery and Imposing Sanctions against Father on November 25, 1997.As part of the sanctions imposed by the court for Father's refusal to comply with discovery, Father's pleadings were stricken, and he was prohibited from introducing evidence or making objections to Mother's evidence in the hearing on her Motion for Modification of Child Support.

The Evidentiary Hearing on Mother's motion was also heard on November 25, 1997.Father failed to appear.Mother testified and offered other documentary evidence in support of her Motion to Modify.Based on the evidence presented by Mother, the trial court entered its Judgment Entry for Modification of Child Support on December 10, 1997.The court found that in the original support order, Father was ordered to pay child support of two-hundred dollars per month and that since the entry of the original order, a substantial change in circumstances had occurred that rendered the original child support award unreasonable.The changed circumstances include the increase of the parties' son's needs as a result of the progression of his physical disabilities due to cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia.

The court made a specific finding that due to his physical condition, the child has immediate physical and medical need for: (1) a handicap conversion van costing $45,020; (2) a manual wheelchair to fit the child's increase in size costing $3,587; (3) modifications to Mother's home to provide wheel chair accessibility costing $20,000; (4) an additional room with lift equipment and wheelchair accessibility for the child's use costing $20,000; (5) an electric wheelchair costing $15,000; (6) widening and modification of the doorways in Mother's home to provide wheelchair accessibility for the child costing $5,420; (7) other capital improvements and items immediately needed for the child costing $40,000; (8) other extraordinary medical expenses not covered by health insurance including the cost of medical mileage and weekly therapy costing $944 per month; (9) home health care costing $1,354.50 per month; and (10) out of home medical supervised care for two months costing $2,800.

The court found that Mother is unable to sustain employment outside of the home due to the physical needs of the child and that her income for purposes of calculating child support is $0.Because Father refused to comply with discovery, the trial court was unaware of his income.The court imputed income of $60,000 per year, or $5,000 per month, to Father based on his education, experience, professional qualifications, and earning capacity.In addition to his imputed income, the court also found that Father had assets and ownership interest in a farm in Connecticut valued at $375,000, personal property valued at $36,052, and farm equipment valued at $23,051.Father has remarried, and the court found his second wife's income to be in excess of $64,000 a year.

In calculating the amount of child support to be paid by Father, the court rejected the Form 14 calculations submitted by Mother and made its own calculations on Form 14.The court found Father's presumed child support obligation to be $600, and the court placed $775 on line 4d of Form 14 under "uninsured extraordinary medical expenses" to provide for the child's weekly physical therapy sessions.From its calculations, the court ordered Father to pay child support to Mother in the amount of $1,370 per month.The court also ordered Father to provide medical health insurance for the child and to pay all medical or medical related charges incurred to care for the child that are not covered by the health insurance.The court did not, however, direct either party to pay for the "immediate physical needs" listed above that the court found had arisen due to the child's physical condition.

Mother now appeals the court's judgment arguing the court erred in failing to include the costs of the immediate physical and medical needs of the child.Father cross appeals claiming the court erred in striking his pleadings and prohibiting him from introducing evidence, ordering him to pay all uninsured medical expenses, imputing income to him in the amount of $5,000 per month, and including extraordinary medical expenses of $775 per month in calculating the presumed child support amount.

Father's Cross-Appeal

Father cross appeals, asserting four points.He claims that (1)the trial court erred in striking his pleadings and prohibiting his counsel from participating in the trial; (2)the court erred in ordering him to pay uninsured medical expenses for his son because payment of these expenses increases the total amount of child support in excess of the Form...