Jeffus v. Jeffus

• Decision Date: 21 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. WD 74302.,WD 74302.
• Citation: Jeffus v. Jeffus, 375 S.W.3d 862 (Mo. App. 2012)
• Parties: Charles Wade JEFFUS, Respondent, v. Amy Lynn JEFFUS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

375 S.W.3d 862

Charles Wade JEFFUS, Respondent,

v.Amy Lynn JEFFUS, Appellant.

No. WD 74302.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 21, 2012.

Allen Russell, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

James Rust, Richmond, MO, for respondent.

Before JAMES EDWARD WELSH, C.J., THOMAS H. NEWTON, J., and OWENS L. HULL, Sp. J.

JAMES EDWARD WELSH, Chief Judge.

Amy Lynn Jeffus(Wife) appeals the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Charles Wade Jeffus(Husband).Wife contends that the circuit court's judgment regarding child support misapplied the law and was unsupported by the evidence.Wife asserts two points on appeal, each containing subparts.¹In total, Wife raises five separate issues.First, Wife alleges that the court erred by awarding Husband a credit for overnight stays, contending that Wife's income is too low for Husband to receive the credit.Second, Wife contends that the court erred by imposing against Wife a federal tax credit for her child care deductions, contending that she will not have the benefit of such deductions because Husband was awarded the federal dependency exemptions for the children.Third, Wife contends that the court erred by failing to include at least $200 in Wife's extraordinary expenses in its child support calculation.Fourth, Wife alleges that the court erred in awarding Husband the federal tax dependency exemptions for the minor children because the court failed to order Wife to sign a declaration described in 26 U.S.C. 152(e).Finally, Wife contends that the court erred in awarding Husband the federal tax dependency exemptions because the court failed to find the court's Form 14 unjust and inappropriate.We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

Husband and Wife were married February 14, 2002, in the State of Louisiana.Two children were born of the marriage.Husband and Wife separated on April 6, 2009, and on December 4, 2009, Husband petitioned the court for dissolution of the marriage.At the time Husband filed his petition, Husband resided in Missouri and Wife and the children resided in Louisiana.The court heard evidence on March 9, 2011, and on May 9, 2011, the court entered its Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage.On May 24, 2011, Wife filed a motion to reconsider the court's child support order and set aside the judgment.In that motion, Wife proposed, among other things, that the Form 14 reflect a 0% credit to Husband for overnight stays, that the Form 14 remove the federal child care tax credit from Wife, and that the Form 14 reflect Wife's extraordinary school and extracurricular expenses.On August 26, 2011, the court denied Wife's motion.Wife appeals.

We will affirm the circuit court's judgment of child support unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.Murphy v. Carron,536 S.W.2d 30, 32(Mo. banc 1976).

In her first point on appeal, Wife contends that the court erred in its child support award, claiming that the court misapplied the law and that the court's Form 14 was unsupported by substantial and competent evidence.Wife asserts three errors in the award.First, she contends that the court should not have granted Husband a Line 11 credit for overnight stays because the credit is only applicable if Wife's income exceeds $1,700.Wife asserts that the Comments to Form 14 provide for a 9% credit on Line 11 to a parent who is obligated to pay child support and who has between 73 and 91 overnight stays with the minor children for whom the child support is being paid.Wife concedes that Husband was awarded the requisite number of overnight stays to initially qualify for the credit, however, contends that a caveat to the Line 11 credit prevents Husband from receiving it.The caveat mandates that, unless the parent receiving support is unemployed or underemployed because expenses are paid, in whole or in part, by a cohabitant, the parent receiving child support must have a gross monthly income exceeding $1,700 for the Line 11 credit to apply.²Additionally, the caveat grants the credit if the adjusted gross income of the support obligor, less the presumed child support amount, is equal to or less than $1,700.Because Wife's gross monthly income on the court's Form 14 is less than $1,700, Husband's gross monthly income exceeds $1,700, and Wife was not found to be underemployed, Wife contends that Husband cannot receive a Line 11 credit.We agree.

We find the caveat to the Line 11 credit, under the Directions, Comments for Use and Examples for Completion of FormNo. 14 of the Missouri Court Rules, to be clear.The caveat expressly states that an adjustment on line 11 “shall not be allowed” unless the parent entitled to receive support exceeds the adjusted monthly gross income of $1,700 for two children and is not “unemployed or underemployed because the expenses of that parent are paid, in whole or in part, by a person with whom that parent cohabits,” or, “[t]he adjusted monthly gross income of the parent obligated to pay support, less the presumed child support amount, is equal to or less than” $1,700 for two children.Here, Wife's gross monthly income on the court's Form 14 was found to be $1,255.Wife receives support for two children.Wife's gross monthly income of $1,255 is below the $1,700 minimum adjusted gross monthly income required for application of the Line 11 credit.The court made no findings that either Wife was unemployed or underemployed or that Wife's expenses were paid, in whole or part, by a cohabitant.³Husband's adjusted monthly gross income of $6,426, less the presumed child support amount of $1,187, equals $5,239.This is above the $1,700 maximum adjusted gross monthly income required in order for the support obligor to still obtain the credit.Therefore, Husband is not entitled to the Line 11 credit for overnight stays.

Husband disagrees and contends that it was “obvious from the evidence” that Wife was underemployed and argues that the court implied such when it granted the overnight stay credit.He argues that had Wife been employed full time at her stated wage of $10.50 per hour, Wife's income would have exceeded $1,700.⁴Therefore, Husband maintains that Wife is underemployed and that the court committed no error in allowing the overnight stay credit.We disagree.Rather than accept Wife's actual gross monthly income of $866.67, the court imputed a $7.25 minimum wage at 40 hours per week to arrive at Wife's monthly income.“Line 1: Gross Income of FormNo. 14, DIRECTIONS, COMMENTS FOR USE AND EXAMPLES FOR COMPLETION OF FORMNO. 14, provides, in pertinent part, that income may be imputed ‘[i]f a parent is unemployed or found to be underemployed.’ ”Peniston v. Peniston,161 S.W.3d 428, 434(Mo.App.2005).Therefore, the court necessarily deemed Wife underemployed when it imputed her income.However, Wife's imputed gross monthly income of $1,255 was still far less than the $1,700 gross monthly income required under the Line 11 caveat for Husband to be allowed the Line 11 credit.For Husband to receive the Line 11 credit for overnight stays, Wife's imputed gross monthly income must have either exceeded $1,700 on the court's Form 14, or the court must have expressly found that the overnight stay credit was being awarded because Wife was unemployed or underemployed and because Wife's expenses were being paid, in whole or part, by a cohabitant.Here, the court made no such findings.Additionally, there is no evidence in the record that, at the time of the dissolution hearing, Wife's expenses were being paid, in whole or part, by a cohabitant.The evidence reflects that in July of 2009, shortly after Husband and Wife separated, Wife and the two minor children lived with family and friends because of Wife's lack of means to secure a place of her own.At trial, however, Wife testified that she and the children resided in a rent-to-own property.There was no evidence that anyone but Wife and the children resided at that residence.Therefore, Husband is not entitled to a Line 11 overnight stay credit under the Form 14 guidelines, and for the court to award him such was error.Wife's first contention under point one is granted.

In Wife's second contention under her first point on appeal, Wife asserts that the court erred in applying a $102 Federal childcare cost tax credit on Line6(a)(ii) of the Form 14.She does not dispute the dollar amount of the credit but argues that the trial court“should not have applied the tax credit against the cost Wife is to pay for work related daycare expenses since Wife will not receive the benefit of the Federal Tax Credit against her child care expenses.”Although Wife failed to expoundupon her argument, her contention appears to be that, because Husband was awarded the Federal Tax Exemptions for the minor children, Wife will be unable to deduct work-related dependent care expenses.Therefore, Wife contends that the court offsetting Wife's dependent care expenses with a Federal Tax Credit for those expenses was error.Wife offers no authority to support her claim.Internal Revenue Service Publication 503 states that for children of divorced or separated parents or parents living apart, “[e]ven if you cannot claim your child as a dependent, he or she is treated as your qualifying person,” for purposes of claiming child care expenses, if you were, among other things, “the child's custodial parent.”Per Publication 503, the custodial parent is the parent with whom the children resided for the greater number of nights during the tax year.Additionally, Publication 503 states that “[t]he noncustodial parent cannot treat the child as a qualifying person even if that parent is entitled to treat the child as a dependent under the special rules for a child of divorced or separated parents.”Here, under the parenting plan adopted by the court, Wife was awarded a greater...