Landoll by Landoll v. Dovell, 55997

Decision Date10 October 1989
Docket NumberNo. 55997,55997
PartiesNicholas LANDOLL, by his Next Friend Karen LANDOLL, and Karen Landoll, Individually, Respondent, v. William DOVELL, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Allan F. Stewart, Clayton, for appellant.

Joseph G. Nassif and Paul A. Kidwell, Coburn, Croft & Putzell, St. Louis, for respondent.

HAMILTON, Judge.

Appellant William Dovell (hereinafter Dovell) appeals the order of the trial court, dated December 20, 1988, that granted the Motion for Partial Back Support Plus Interest filed by Nicholas Landoll, by his next friend Karen Landoll, and Karen Landoll, individually (hereinafter the Landolls). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This is the second appeal from a partial judgment by the trial court in the underlying case. The summary judgment of paternity and of temporary support was before this court in Landoll v. Dovell, 779 S.W.2d 621 (Mo.App. 1989) (hereinafter Landoll I). We adopt the factual statement of the earlier opinion (Landoll I, 779 S.W.2d at 623 - 24), adding only facts that pertain to the later order of back support.

Following the trial court's entry of a final order and decree finding that Dovell was the father of Nicholas Landoll and ordering temporary support (the subject of Landoll I), the Landolls filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Partial Back Support Plus Interest. On November 2, 1988, the trial court, considering the same evidence presented on the earlier issue of temporary support, granted the Landolls' motion for back support and ordered Dovell to pay $12,304.88 in back support for the period of July 1, 1986, to July 1, 1987. This sum represented the full amount of expenses for the period without interest. On December 20, 1988, the trial court entered an order pursuant to Rule 74.01(b) making its order of November 2 a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Thereafter, Dovell appealed.

On appeal, Dovell asserts the trial court erred in ordering past support (1) absent a final determination of paternity and (2) absent evidentiary support for the award.

All of the arguments raised in Dovell's first point in this appeal 1 were raised and decided as separate points in Landoll I. The decision of an appellate court is the law of the case on all issues presented and decided; it remains the law of the case for any subsequent proceedings in that litigation. Gamble v. Hoffman, 732 S.W.2d 890, 895 (Mo. banc 1987); Pemberton v. Pemberton, 779 S.W.2d 8, 10 (Mo.App. Sept. 19, 1989). No issue previously decided will be relitigated on a second appeal. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Buie, 758 S.W.2d 157, 161 (Mo.App.1988). Because this court affirmed the trial court on the issue of paternity in Landoll I, Dovell cannot relitigate that issue. His first point is therefore denied.

In his second point on appeal, Dovell contends that the order for back support was unsupported by the evidence. Past due child support is based upon the legal principle of reimbursement for necessaries, not the equitable principles applied to determine prospective support. McNulty v. Heitman, 600 S.W.2d 168, 172 (Mo.App.1980). Past, or back, support is limited to the reasonable value of necessaries supplied the minor child by the custodial parent. Crockett v. Schlingman, 741 S.W.2d 717, 720 (Mo.App.1987). Once paternity is established, the trial court may divide the expense of past necessaries between both parents. A.V. v. G.V., 726 S.W.2d 782, 784 (Mo.App.1987). Proper allocation of the burden of back support requires consideration of the financial condition of each parent. Id. This includes consideration of both past and present earnings. Deardorff v. Bohannon, 761 S.W.2d 651, 655 (Mo.App.1988).

The trial court considered Karen Landoll's testimony of July 6, 1987, and her affidavits for both temporary and back support determinations. No additional evidence was adduced at the hearing on the motion for partial back support. The Landolls' brief specifically notes that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Schwartz v. Lawson, WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 25, 1990
    ...no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Landoll by Landoll v. Dovell, 778 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Mo.App.1989). It is a suitable device for the summary adjudication of statute of limitations and other affirmative defenses. Kennon v.......
  • DeCapo v. DeCapo, WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 6, 1996
    ...on principles of reimbursement for necessaries, not equitable principles applied to prospective support. Landoll by Landoll v. Dovell, 778 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Mo.App.1989). Past or back child support is limited to the reasonable value of necessaries supplied the minor child by the custodial pa......
  • Babb v. Pfuehler
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 12, 1997
    ...by Dorothy and Child in preparation for trial. 9 The lone case cited by Phillip in support of the point is Landoll by Landoll v. Dovell, 778 S.W.2d 846 (Mo.App. E.D.1989). In Landoll, as here, a mother sought reimbursement from a father for necessaries the mother furnished their child. Id. ......
  • Schulze By and Through Schulze v. Haile, WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 13, 1992
    ...the legal principal of reimbursement of necessaries and not the equitable principles to determine prospective support. Landoll v. Dovell, 778 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Mo.App.1989) (citing McNulty v. Heitman, 600 S.W.2d 168, 172 (Mo.App.1980)). However, without clear authority, Susan argues that the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT