Frawley v. Frawley
| Decision Date | 11 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | WD 83397,C/w WD 83442 |
| Citation | 608 S.W.3d 771 |
| Parties | Victoria FRAWLEY, Respondent, v. Matthew J. FRAWLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Matthew J. Frawley, St. Charles Appellantpro se.
Stephanie L. Schutt, Liberty, Craig D. Ritchie, Trang T. Thi Bui, St. Loseph for respondent.
Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Thomas N. Chapman, Judges
In consolidated appeals, Matthew J. Frawley("Father") appeals from the modification judgment finding him in contempt of the child support provisions of the judgment dissolving his marriage to Victoria L. Frawley("Mother").He contends that the remedy of contempt was not requested in Mother's modification pleadings; the court erred in admitting two exhibits; the evidence was insufficient to support the court's findings concerning his contumacious conduct; and the trial judge erred in not recusing herself.Additionally, Father asserts that the court erred in issuing the warrant of commitment and order for release of bond because he claims it did so without notice and without finding that he had the present ability to purge himself of the contempt.Because Father's notices of appeal were untimely filed, we dismiss the appeals.
Father and Mother's marriage was dissolved in 2013.Pursuant to the dissolution judgment, Mother was awarded sole legal and sole physical custody of the parties’ two children, Father was awarded visitation "at all reasonable times and places to be determined by the Mother," and Father was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $505 per month.
In 2016, Father filed a motion to modify the child custody and child support provisions of the dissolution judgment.In his motion, Father requested that the court modify Mother's award of sole legal and sole physical custody to award the parties joint legal and joint physical custody and decrease his child support obligation.Mother filed a counter-motion to modify seeking to increase child support.
While the motions to modify were pending, Mother filed a motion in January 2017 to hold Father in contempt for failing to satisfy his existing child support obligation.In her contempt motion, Mother alleged that Father willfully failed and refused to comply with the dissolution judgment's order that he pay half of the children's uninsured medical expenses and extracurricular expenses.Father filed an answer to Mother's contempt motion in which he denied that he was responsible for the amounts Mother alleged.The court entered an order directing Father to appear before the court on April 18, 2017, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.The show cause hearing was later continued to the date of trial on the motions to modify.
A bench trial was held on the motions to modify and Mother's motion for contempt on December 11, 2017, February 15, 2018, March 7, 2018, August 13, 2018, November 19, 2018, and November 26, 2018.1In July 2018 and November 2018, Father filed motions requesting that the trial judge recuse herself based upon adverse rulings the court made during trial.Both motions were denied.The court entered its modification judgment on January 3, 2019.In its judgment, the circuit court declined to modify its award of sole legal and physical custody to Mother but did modify Father's visitation to allow him specific periods of supervised visitation.The court increased Father's child support obligation to $554 per month because Father's income had increased and ordered Father to pay Mother $10,000 in attorney fees and two-thirds of the guardian ad litem fees.
The court held Father in contempt for failing to pay his share of the children's previously incurred extracurricular and uninsured medical expenses.Specifically, the court found that Father owed Mother $6,352.03 for his share of the extracurricular and uninsured medical expenses, that Father had the ability to pay these expenses, and that he willfully and maliciously refused to pay them.The court ordered Father to purge himself of the contempt by mailing a payment of $200 per month, beginning January 15, 2019, to Mother until the amount was paid in full.The court further ordered that Father's failure to make such payments could result in his incarceration in the Platte County Detention Center until such time as he purged himself of the contempt.
Father appealed the modification judgment to this court in case number WD82442.While that appeal was pending, Mother filed a motion for a commitment order and a motion to execute on the judgment of contempt on February 19, 2019.In response, Father filed an answer asserting that the contempt order in the modification judgment was "unethical and void" and not supported by substantial evidence.Father also filed a separate motion to quashMother's motion for a commitment order, arguing that the circuit court lost jurisdiction to hear the motion after he filed his notice of appeal.
Mother noticed up her motion for commitment order for hearing on March 14, 2019.Father responded by filing a "Notice and Application" in which he informed the court that he would not be available for the March 14, 2019 hearing2 and asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction because of his pending appeal of the modification judgment.He requested that the court cancel the March 14, 2019 hearing.In the alternative, he asked that the court disqualify the judge and reassign the case to another judge or transfer venue to either Cole County, where he resided, or Clay County, where Mother resided, because he alleged that Platte County was an inconvenient forum.
The court held the hearing on Mother's motion for a commitment order on March 14, 2019.Father did not appear.The court found Father in contempt but did not enter a commitment order at that time.The case was continued to June 13, 2019, for further hearing on the issue of Father's contempt.After the March 14, 2019 hearing but on the same day, Father filed another "Notice and Application" in which he acknowledged the contempt hearing had been held in his absence, that he was found in contempt, and that the court declined to issue a warrant of commitment at that time.Father again argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the contempt motion due to the pending appeal, asked for a protective order staying any further proceedings until this court rendered a decision in his appeal of the modification judgment, and stated that he would "not appear before a bias [sic ] and unethical tribunal."In the alternative, he requested that the court transfer venue to Clay County.
The court held another hearing on June 13, 2019, for a determination of Father's ability to pay and to permit Father the opportunity to demonstrate to the court any change in his financial circumstances since the date of the modification judgment.Father did not appear.The court directed Mother's attorney to prepare a proposed order for the court's review.After the hearing but on the same day, Father filed a "Notice" in which he again alleged that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear any motions due to the pending appeal, and he told the court that he was refusing to appear "because this tribunal refuses to conform its behavior to Missouri Supreme Court Rules 2 and 4 and all judgments and orders are void as a matter of law."Father asked the court to "cancel any currently scheduled hearing pending the present appeal."
On October 7, 2019, the court issued a writ of attachment and warrant of commitment.In the warrant of commitment, the court determined that Father was in indirect civil contempt of the modification judgment.The court found that Father had the financial ability to comply with the modification judgment's provisions that he reimburse Mother $6,352.03 for his share of the extracurricular and uninsured medical expenses by paying installments of $200 per month.In particular, the court noted Father's continuing employment with the same entity since the entry of the modification proceeding, his recent expenditures, which included his paying for a wedding ceremony and reception, and his refusal to appear before the court on two occasions to provide evidence that his financial circumstances had changed.
The court, therefore, issued the writ of attachment and warrant of commitment to arrest and detain Father and confine him to the Platte County Jail until such time as he purged himself of the contempt by paying $1,800, which was the balance owed for the months of January 2019 through September 2019 pursuant to the contempt order in the modification judgment.The court stated that, upon the posting of $1,800, Father"shall be released and that amount shall be sent to the attorney of record for [Mother]."
Case.net's eNotice History indicates that Father received notice of the court's issuance of the writ of attachment and warrant of commitment the day it was issued.On the same day, Father filed a "Notice of Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S. Code 1983."In this notice, which he also mailed to the Platte County Sheriff's Office, Father alleged that the writ of attachment and warrant of commitment was invalid and void, and he stated, "please let this notice serve as notice to law enforcement that execution of said Writ of Attachment subjects you, law enforcement, to 42 U.S. Code § 1983 civil liability, which [Father] will aggressively seek redress in state and/or federal court."
Father was arrested on December 3, 2019, and posted a bond of $1,800.On December 4, 2019, he filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to this court.While this appeal, case number WD83397, was pending, Mother filed a motion to release the $1,800 bond to her attorney as provided for in the writ of attachment and warrant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frawley v. Frawley
...by our previous rulings in Frawley v. Frawley , 597 S.W.3d 742 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (" Frawley I") , and Frawley v. Frawley , 608 S.W.3d 771 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (" Frawley II").Mr. Frawley ("Father") asserts four points on appeal. In Point I, Father asserts that, after he filed motions for......