Hill v. Douglas-Hill
| Decision Date | 28 September 1999 |
| Citation | 1 S.W.3d 613 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 1999) William H. Hill, III, Appellant, v. Leisa Douglas-Hill, Respondent. WD56207 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Christine T. Sill-Rogers
Counsel for Appellant: Linda Faye Turley Dycus
Counsel for Respondent: Mary Ann Drape
Opinion Summary: The father appeals the trial court's judgment and decree of dissolution of his marriage to the mother. The father alleges the trial court failed to follow statutory law in awarding child support, failed to properly calculate retroactive child support, and failed to properly divide the parties' marital and non-marital property.
Division One holds: The trial court erred in failing to deduct Father's ordinary and necessary business expenses from his gross receipts in arriving at his gross income in preparing its Form 14. The Directions to Form 14 require the court to deduct from gross rent or proprietorship income all ordinary and necessary business expenses in arriving at a gross rental income figure. Therefore, the trial court had a duty to deduct the interest portion of Father's mortgage payments on his rental properties, as well as any other reasonable and necessary business expenses before arriving at his gross income. It is clear from the court's Form 14 that it did not do so. Thus, the judgment on child support is reversed. On remand, the court is to properly determine Father's gross income in accordance with these principles.
The trial court erred in failing to take into account Mother's federal tax credit for reasonable work-related childcare expense on its Form 14. The Form 14 Worksheet provides for the "Custodial parents reasonable work-related child care costs (Actual costs less federal tax credit)." And, the directions for the preparation of Form 14 instruct the preparer to "enter the reasonable monthly work-related child care costs less any federal income tax credit available to the custodial parent." The tax credit was not considered here. On remand, the court should determine the tax credit as provided in the current version of Form 14.
The trial court erred in including $300 per month in the child support award for private education expense when there was inadequate evidence of need. Here, the child had not yet enrolled in any particular private school and Mother testified she was uncertain of the tuition expense. Nothing in the record shows whether $300 was a reasonable estimate. While an award of school cost may be made contingent on future entry into school, it must be based on specific evidence of those costs. Based on the limited information in the record, it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to award $300 per month for private school expense. Since we remand for further proceedings, however, and since time may have made the issue of school expense less speculative, the court may consider additional evidence.
The trial court erred in failing to set forth the legal description of the real estate awarded in its judgment. The full legal description of the property in a dissolution decree is necessary in order to ensure that the filing of the decree with the recorder of deeds is effective in dispelling future questions as to the land title. Here, the trial court only included the street addresses of the real estate in the decree. Street addresses are not proper legal descriptions. On remand, the court is instructed to set out the full legal description of the real estate awarded. The court should also be certain to set forth both portions of the duplex properties when it includes the legal descriptions in the dissolution decree.
Further issues, such as whether there was evidence that a certain property awarded to the father was ever owned by the father, and whether there is evidence as to whether certain property was properly characterized as marital, may be considered on remand and the court may adjust its award, if appropriate.
William H. Hill, III (Father) appeals the trial court's judgment and decree of dissolution of his marriage to Leisa Douglas-Hill (Mother). Father alleges the trial court failed to follow statutory law in awarding child support, failed to properly calculate retroactive child support, and failed to properly divide the parties' marital and non-marital property. Because we find the trial court erred in failing to deduct Father's ordinary and necessary business expenses in arriving at his gross income, in failing to deduct Mother's federal tax credit for work-related childcare costs, in including $300 per month in the child support award for private education expenses without adequate evidence of need, and in failing to include the proper legal description in the distribution of real property, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Father and Mother were married on August 5, 1990. Together they had one child, Bijon Christian Hill, born on November 17, 1990. During the marriage, Father owned several pieces of income-producing rental property which he operated through Houston Management, a company he founded in 1989. In January 1996, Mother and Father separated.
On July 29, 1996, Mother filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage seeking a division of the martial property and debt, custody of Bijon, who was then five years old, child support, maintenance, and attorneys' fees for the cost of the action. On May 15, 1996, Father filed his answer and cross-petition for dissolution, also seeking a division of property, joint legal and physical custody of Bijon, and child support.
Following a hearing on March 30, 1998, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the Hills' marriage on July 2, 1998. The court awarded Mother the care, custody, and control of the minor child, Bijon, subject to Father's rights of reasonable visitation. The court adopted Mother's Form 14 and ordered Father to pay $1,065 per month in child support for Bijon. Mother requested $300 per month for private school. The court found Bijon to be gifted and talented, and that prior to the parties' separation, she had always been in private daycare and kindergarten. Mother also testified that prior child care had cost about $300 per month and that she believed that it would cost at least this much to send the child to the two private schools to which she had applied or was planning to apply to, in addition to financial aid, although she had not yet heard from them about admission, tuition or the amount of financial aid available. Based on this evidence, the judge included in the child support award $300 per month for Bijon's private education. The court further entered judgment against Father in the amount of $17,108 for a child support arrearage accrued during the period of separation.
The trial court also divided the marital property and debt. The court found the marital real property consisted of four separate properties, including the marital residence. The court found the aggregate equity of these marital properties to be $45,324.75, and entered judgment against Father for $22,675, representing Mother's portion of the marital property. The court then set aside three of the properties to Father, ordered the sale of the marital residence, and ordered that the first $22,675 of the proceeds from that sale go to Mother in satisfaction of her judgment against Father. The court divided the remaining marital property as follows: Mother was awarded the car, the UMB bank account, and all personal property in her possession; Father was awarded the motorcycle, the Mercantile bank account, the Houston property account, and all personal property in his possession. The court found no need for an award of maintenance, and ordered Father to pay Mother's attorneys' fees and costs of the dissolution, amounting to $2,925. Father appeals.
On appeal of a judgment in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision. Replogle v. Replogle, 903 S.W.2d 551, 553 (Mo. App. 1995). We will affirm the trial court's decree unless there is no substantial evidence to support the decision, the decision is against the weight of the evidence, or the decision erroneously declares or misapplies the law. Crews v. Crews, 949 S.W.2d 659, 663 (Mo. App. 1997), quoting, Allen v. Allen, 927 S.W.2d 881, 885 (Mo. App. 1996). The party challenging the dissolution decree has the burden of demonstrating error. Id.
Father alleges the trial court erred with respect to the child support determination in the dissolution decree in: (1) failing to subtract ordinary and necessary business expenses in calculating Father's gross income on the Form 14; (2) failing to deduct any federal tax credit for Mother's reasonable work-related child care costs; (3) using an inflated amount for health insurance costs on Form 14; (4) including $300 per month for private school expense when the child was not enrolled in or attending private school and the costs for such schooling were speculative; (5) ordering a child support judgment which was against the evidence of what Father had the ability to pay; and (6) making a mathematical error in calculating the child support arrearage owed by Father.
In Missouri, Rule 88.01 and Section 452.340 govern the award of child support.1 Rule 88.01, together with Section 452.340, provides a two-step procedure for determining child support. Woolridge v. Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d 372, 378 (Mo. App. 1996). First, the trial court is required to calculate the child support amount pursuant to Civil Procedure Form No. 14, either by accepting one of the parties' proposed Form 14's or by rejecting them if they are not accurately or correctly completed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ricklefs v. Ricklefs
...in dispelling future questions as to land title." Douglas-Hill, 1 S.W.3d at 622 (citation omitted). As here, the respondent argued in Douglas-Hill the failure to comply with the rule was not an issue in dispute on appeal inasmuch as quit-claim deeds had been filed with respect to the real p......
-
Thill v. Thill
...of gross receipts may be excluded from such ordinary and necessary expenses." (Line 1, page 4) (Emphasis added). Douglass-Hill v. Hill, 1 S.W.3d 613, 617 (Mo. App. 1999). In the present case, Husband had rental income and partnership income. In addition, because the two corporations had cho......
-
Lynch v. Lynch
...evidence and, within its own discretion, hold a hearing or allow new evidence to resolve factual disputes. See Douglas-Hill v. Hill, 1 S.W.3d 613, 618-20 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999). We find the trial court misapplied the law when calculating Mother’s monthly income. We remand for the trial court ......
-
Ricklefs v. Ricklefs
...both before and after the effective date of the present version of Civil Procedure Form No. 14, October 1, 1998. See Douglas-Hill v. Hill, 1 S.W.3d 613, 619 (Mo. App. 1999); Halupa v. Halupa, 980 S.W.2d 325, 329 (Mo. App. 1998); Webb v. Fox, 978 S.W.2d 16, 21 (Mo. App. 1998); Shiflett, 954 ......