Frawley v. Frawley
| Decision Date | 18 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | WD 84025 |
| Parties | Victoria L. FRAWLEY, Respondent, v. Matthew J. FRAWLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Craig D. Ritchie, Stephanie L. Schutt, and Trang T. Bui, Liberty, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.
Matthew J. Frawley, St. Charles, MO, Appellant, pro se.
Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, and Alok Ahuja and Karen King Mitchell, Judges
Mr. Matthew J. Frawley, a licensed attorney who is acting pro se , appeals from contempt rulings entered by the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri ("circuit court"), finding him in contempt of court for failing to comply with the child support provisions of both the Judgment and Decree for Dissolution of Marriage dissolving his marriage to Ms. Victoria Lynn Frawley ("Dissolution Judgment") and the circuit court's subsequent judgment modifying the Dissolution Judgment ("Modification Judgment"), which contempt rulings were subsequently enforced. Mr. Frawley's appeal also improperly attempts to resurrect issues that have been finally resolved 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 change of judge, the circuit court judge erred in not recusing herself before entering the Modification Judgment. In Point II, Father asserts that the circuit court erred in modifying the visitation schedule in the Modification Judgment and finding that unsupervised parenting time with Father would endanger the children's physical health or impair their emotional development in that there was no expert testimony to support that finding. In Point III, Father argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the guardian ad litem performed good and valuable legal services in the proceedings leading to the Modification Judgment and in ordering Father to pay two-thirds of the guardian ad litem ’s fees. In Point IV, Father contends that the circuit court erred in finding that he was in contempt of the circuit court's judgments because there was no substantial evidence that he willfully refused to comply with the judgment provisions related to reimbursement for the children's extracurricular and medical expenses. We affirm.
Father and Ms. Frawley ("Mother") were married in 2008 and had two children together. On March 7, 2013, the circuit court entered its Dissolution Judgment. Pursuant to the Dissolution Judgment, Mother was granted sole physical and sole legal custody of the parties’ two minor children. Father was awarded visitation "at all reasonable times and places to be determined by the Mother in light of Father's psychological difficulties." Regarding financial support, the Dissolution Judgment ordered Father to pay child support in the amount of $505 per month. While the Dissolution Judgment ordered Mother to carry medical insurance for the minor children, non-covered costs were to be borne by both parents:
Mother should pay 50% and Father should pay 50% of the cost, expense, or charges for all ... health care expenses incurred by or on behalf of the child to the extent that the "medical costs" are actually incurred and are not fully covered, no[t] fully paid, or not reimbursed by the health benefit plan.
The Dissolution Judgment provided a mechanism for paying non-covered costs, having the parent obtaining the non-covered care provide a copy of each bill to the other parent, submit the covered expenses to the insurer for payment, and send the other parent a copy of the insurer's Explanation of Benefits showing the amount paid or denied. With regard to educational expenses, the Dissolution Judgment ordered each parent to "pay one-half (50%) of the children's extracurricular activities, including but not limited to: enrollment fees, dues, uniforms, clothing, shoes, etc."
In 2016, Father filed a motion to modify the Dissolution Judgment as to child custody and visitation. In Father's motion, he 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 to review his child support obligation. Mother filed a counter-motion to modify, seeking to increase child support.
In January 2017, while the motions to modify were pending, Mother filed a motion asking the circuit court to cite Father "for contempt for his willful failure and refusal to comply with the ordered child support and unpaid medical bills of the minor children" in compliance with the Dissolution Judgment. Father filed an answer to Mother's contempt motion, in which he denied that he was responsible for the amounts Mother alleged. The circuit 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. In July 2018 and November 2018, Father filed motions requesting that the circuit court judge recuse herself based upon adverse rulings the circuit court made during trial. Both motions were denied.
The circuit court entered its Modification Judgment on January 3, 2019. In its Modification Judgment, the circuit court declined to modify its award of sole legal and physical custody to Mother but did modify Father's visitation to restrict his visits to specific periods of supervised visitation. All decisions related to the athletic and social activities of the minor children were Mother's sole responsibility, but the payment of expenses associated with those activities were ordered to be "equally shared between the parties." All health care decisions for the minor children were Mother's sole responsibility, but non-covered health care expenses were to be "equally shared between Mother and Father." The Modification Judgment reiterated the same mechanism for payment of non-covered costs as in the Dissolution Judgment. The circuit 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.
In the Modification Judgment, the circuit court held Father in contempt for failing to pay his share of the children's previously incurred extracurricular and uninsured medical expenses. Specifically, the circuit 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 circuit 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 circuit 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 on January 8, 2019, and we issued our ruling with respect to all matters relating to the Modification Judgment on February 11, 2020, in Frawley I .2
While Father's appeal from the Modification Judgment was pending, Mother filed a motion for a commitment order and a motion to execute on the Modification Judgment's finding of contempt on February 19, 2019. The circuit court held a hearing on Mother's motion for a commitment order on March 14, 2019. Father did not appear. The case was continued, and the circuit 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 circuit court any change in his financial circumstances since the date of the Modification Judgment. Father again did not appear.
On October 7, 2019, the circuit court issued a writ of attachment and warrant of commitment.3 In the warrant of commitment, the circuit court determined that Father was in contempt of the orders in the Modification Judgment. The circuit 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. The circuit court 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. The circuit 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]." Father was arrested on December 3, 2019, and posted a bond of $1,800. On December 5, 2019, Father filed a notice of appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to this Court. We issued our ruling with regard to all issues relating to this contempt civil commitment in Frawley II .
While Father's appeal as to his first contempt civil commitment 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 of commitment. Mother noticed up the motion for a hearing. Father filed a motion for change of judge and recusal and noticed it up for hearing on the same day as Mother's motion. On December 17, 2019, the circuit court held a hearing on both motions, but Father...
To continue reading
Request your trial