French v. French, 56481

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: DOWD; SIMON, C.J. and SIMEONE
• Citation: French v. French, 782 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. App. 1990)
• Decision Date: 09 January 1990
• Docket Number: No. 56481,56481
• Parties: Jean FRENCH, Appellant, v. Kenneth FRENCH, Respondent.

Page 449

782 S.W.2d 449

Jean FRENCH, Appellant, v. Kenneth FRENCH, Respondent.

No. 56481.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Five.

Jan. 9, 1990.

Robert C. Babione, St. Louis, for appellant.

Kenneth French, Lake St. Louis, pro se.

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Jean French appeals from a circuit court decision reversing an administrative order for payment of delinquent child support and maintenance. We reverse the circuit court order and reinstate the administrative decision.

Appellant and respondent were divorced in 1971 and respondent was ordered to pay monthly child support of $175.00 and maintenance of $450.00. In 1982, appellant filed a petition to recover delinquent child support and maintenance. No action was taken on the matter until 1988, when the Division of Child Support Enforcement entered an order for respondent to pay $77,830.00 in arrearages. Respondent requested a hearing on the matter pursuant to section 454.476.4, RSMo 1986.

At the hearing, Mr. Thibault, of the Division of Child Support Enforcement, produced a computer printout of payments taken from the records of the circuit clerk of St. Louis County. Respondent's attorney objected on the grounds that no foundation had been laid for these records, but the hearing officer overruled him after Mr. Thibault indicated he could get a certified copy of these records. In fact, no certified copy was ever filed. Mr. Thibault also submitted worksheets used to calculate the arrearages. The Division then called appellant and attempted to get her to state under oath that the figures presented in the worksheets were correct. Although appellant was reluctant to make a definitive statement, she eventually stated that the figures were accurate to the best of her knowledge. ¹

After examining respondent and the parties' son, respondent's attorney and Mr. Thibault recomputed the arrearages based on evidence of support and maintenance already paid and on the time son did not live with appellant. The hearing officer entered an order on this computation, stating that respondent owed arrearages of $2,304.50 for child support and $20,525.00 for maintenance.

Respondent appealed to the circuit court, claiming that the order was not supported by competent and substantial evidence. The circuit court found for respondent based on the requirements of section 454.476, concerning administrative orders for child support and maintenance. The statute states:

1. If a court order has previously been entered, the director may enter an administrative order in accordance with the court order, upon receiving from the obligee, a child support enforcement agency of another state, or the court:

(1) A certified copy of the court order together with all modifications thereto;

(2) A sworn statement by the obligee or a certified statement from the court attesting to or certifying the amount of arrearages under the court order;

(3) A statement of the name, last known address and, if known, the social security number of the obligor; and

(4) the name and address of the obligor's employer or other payor, if known.

. . . . .

4. The obligor, within fourteen days after receiving notice of the director's order, may request an administrative hearing as provided in section 454.475 to contest the order or withholding thereunder. At such hearing, the certified copy of the court order and the sworn or certified statement of arrearages shall constitute prima facie evidence that the director's order is valid and enforceable. Once the prima facie case is established, the obligor may assert only mistake of fact as a defense. Mistake of fact shall mean an error in the amount of arrearages or an error as to the identity of the obligor. The obligor shall have the burden of proof as to these issues. The obligor may not obtain relief from the withholding by paying the overdue support.

The circuit court found that appellant refused to vouch for the accuracy of the worksheets and held that...