Joseph v. Schrauth
| Decision Date | 15 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | ED 109631 |
| Citation | 642 S.W.3d 340 |
| Parties | Susan JOSEPH, f/k/a Susan Schrauth, Respondent, v. Eric SCHRAUTH, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
FOR APPELLANT: Marshall R. Hoekel, Goldson Hoekel, LLC, 5 Plant Avenue, Suite 2, Webster Grove, Missouri 63119.
FOR RESPONDENT: Elaine A. Pudlowski, Rachel J. Thompson, Frankel, Rubin, Klein, Payne & Pudlowski, PC, 231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 1111, Clayton, Missouri 63105.
Eric Schrauth ("Eric"), the former spouse of Susan Schrauth (n/k/a Susan Joseph) ("Susan") (Eric and Susan are hereinafter collectively the "Parties" or individually a "Party"1 ), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, which granted Susan's motion to dismiss Eric's motion to modify the Parties’ negotiated divorce decree. Eric's motion to modify had requested, inter alia , that the circuit court terminate his current maintenance obligation to Susan based on a purported "substantial and sustained" change in her circumstances. In his sole point on appeal, Eric argues that the circuit court erred in granting Susan's motion to dismiss because the divorce decree was ambiguous as written; furthermore, the applicable maintenance statute—§ 452.3352 —requires that a spousal maintenance obligation be deemed modifiable absent a specific provision that it is non-modifiable, which he argues is not included in the Parties’ divorce decree with respect to his current maintenance obligation. We affirm.
On January 24, 2020, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County entered a negotiated Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (the "Dissolution Judgment") whereby the Parties’ marriage was dissolved. In preparing the Dissolution Judgment, the Parties used a four-page form document made available to litigants in Missouri courts (Form CCFC187-11/09), and all appropriate blanks were completed.
Paragraph 14 of the Dissolution Judgment addressed Eric's maintenance obligation to Susan, and the Parties checked the box that required Eric to pay monthly maintenance to Susan. In the blanks provided, the parties handwrote "$800," and also indicated that this monthly maintenance obligation was not subject to modification. Specifically, the relevant portion of paragraph 14 stated as follows: The italicized portions of the foregoing were handwritten in the appropriate blanks. In addition, on the blank line directly below paragraph 14, the Parties handwrote the following: The following is an image of paragraph 14 of the Dissolution Judgment (which also shows part of paragraph 15), including the handwritten portions:
?
In connection with the entry of the Dissolution Judgment, each Party executed a form document (Form CCFC194-11/09) denominated Affidavit of Judgment , whereby they attested that the information contained in the Dissolution Judgment was true and accurate to the best of their information, knowledge, and belief (the "Dissolution Affidavits"). The Affidavits were notarized on the same date the Dissolution Judgment was entered and were attached thereto.
The Dissolution Judgment also incorporated the Parties’ Separation and Settlement Agreement (the "Separation Agreement"), dated January 24, 2020, by which the Parties divided their property and addressed numerous related issues. Section 4 of the Separation Agreement likewise addressed the Parties’ maintenance obligations to one another, and subsection 4.1 specifically addressed Eric's maintenance obligation to Susan as follows: "Respondent shall pay Petitioner ____ per month until first eligible for social security under existing law. " The italicized portion of the foregoing was handwritten. Directly above the blank space for the amount of monthly maintenance, the Parties handwrote the following: "^ $800 from 2/2020 through 2/2021, then $1,000.00 per month thereafter." It also appears that the Parties placed their initials directly above the handwritten portions of subsection 4.1. However, subsection 4.1 of the Separation Agreement does not state whether Eric's maintenance obligations are subject to modification. Subsection 4.2 of the Separation Agreement states that Eric waives any maintenance from Susan, and further states that this provision "is not subject to modification." The following is an image of Section 4 of the Separation Agreement, including the handwritten portions:
?
In connection with the execution of the Separation Agreement, each Party executed an affidavit whereby they attested that they have read the Separation Agreement, that they are of sound mind, that they understand the contents of the Separation Agreement, and that the statements contained therein are true and accurate to the best of their knowledge and belief (the "Separation Affidavits"). The Separation Affidavits were notarized and attached to the Separation Agreement.
On November 10, 2020, Eric filed his Motion to Modify (the "Motion to Modify"), which requested that the circuit court enter an order modifying the Dissolution Judgment as follows: (1) terminating his spousal maintenance obligation; (2) recalculating his child support obligation in accordance with Form 14 and Rule 88.01; and (3) terminating his child support obligation on or before February 28, 2021, as circumstances warrant. The basis for the Motion to Modify was a purported "substantial and sustained" change in circumstances, to wit: (1) that Susan's "wealthy" mother passed away in July of 2020 and that she allegedly bequeathed "a large monetary inheritance" to Susan; (2) that Susan has procured gainful employment as a medical records coder earning "a substantial wage more than twenty percent greater than the amount she earned at the time of dissolution"; and (3) that Susan inherited her deceased mother's condominium, which is fully paid off, and which she now resides in rent free. Thus, Eric argued that the foregoing facts rendered his continued payment of spousal maintenance to Susan "unjust and unreasonable."
In response to Eric's Motion to Modify, Susan filed her Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion to Dismiss"), which requested that the Motion to Modify be dismissed because Eric's seven-year maintenance obligation was non-modifiable, per the terms of the Dissolution Judgment.3 In addition, the Motion to Dismiss notes that the Dissolution Judgment specifically states that the terms of the Separation Agreement, including Eric's seven-year maintenance obligation, are "equitable and not unconscionable."
On the same date Susan filed her Motion to Dismiss, she also filed her Motion for Attorney Fees (the "Motion for Fees"), which requested an order requiring Eric to pay her reasonable attorney fees in conjunction with the Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, Susan argued that the Motion to Dismiss was "baseless" and an attempt to "harass" her. Susan also stated that she was without sufficient funds or assets to pay her attorneys’ fees and costs, and further argued that Eric was "gainfully employed" and capable of contributing to her attorneys’ fees incurred in defending his Motion to Modify.
Eric thereafter filed his memorandum in opposition to Susan's Motion to Dismiss, which argued that although his $800.00 monthly maintenance obligation from February of 2020 through February of 2021 was non-modifiable, his current $1,000 monthly maintenance obligation is modifiable because it is not subject to the sentence in the Dissolution Judgment which stated that his maintenance obligation was not modifiable; rather, that sentence only applied to his original $800 monthly maintenance obligation. In addition, Eric argued that because the Separation Agreement was silent on the issue of the modifiability of his maintenance obligation, it is presumed to be modifiable pursuant to § 452.335.3. Furthermore, the issue of modifiability is controlled by the Separation Agreement, not the Dissolution Judgment, pursuant to Brucker v. Brucker , 611 S.W.2d 293 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).
Following oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss and additional briefing by the Parties, the circuit court entered its Order and Judgment (the "Motion Judgment") on March 12, 2021, which granted Susan's Motion to Dismiss the Motion to Modify. In discussing the authorities cited in Eric's briefing, the circuit court ultimately concluded that this case involves "separation agreement decretal maintenance," which is maintenance that is "agreed to by the parties and incorporated into the decree." However, the circuit court noted that the Separation Agreement is "silent on the issue of whether the maintenance provision is modifiable." Conversely, the circuit court specifically noted that the Dissolution Judgment does state that Eric's maintenance obligation is non-modifiable. The circuit court further found that the key language of the Dissolution Judgment (i.e., the Parties’ handwritten word "not" in the form dissolution document) was relevant and dispositive of the Parties’ intent to make Eric's maintenance obligation non-modifiable. Therefore, the circuit court found that the Dissolution Judgment was controlling with respect to the modifiability of maintenance under Hughes v. Hughes , 505 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016), and was consistent with § 452.335. Accordingly, the circuit court granted Susan's Motion to Dismiss. However, the circuit court denied Susan's Motion for Fees, finding that the applicable factors of § 452.355 had not been satisfied.4
Finally, we note that prior to submission of Susan's Motion to Dismiss, Eric agreed to withdraw his request for a modification of his child support obligation before it otherwise terminated due to the child's...
To continue reading
Request your trial