Langston v. Langston
| Decision Date | 29 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | WD 82954 |
| Parties | Lisa LANGSTON, Respondent, v. Jonathan LANGSTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Rob Redman, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.
Gary Steinman, Gladstone, MO, Counsel for Respondent.
Before Division One: Thomas N. Chapman, P.J., Mark D. Pfeiffer and W. Douglas Thomson, JJ.
Jonathan Langston ("Father") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County modifying his child support obligation and awarding attorney's fees to Lisa Langston ("Mother"). Father raises five points on appeal. In point one, he argues that the trial court erred in ordering Father to pay a portion of Mother's attorney's fees. In points two, three, four, and five, he asserts that the trial court erred in determining his monthly child support obligation, by miscalculating his income, and by erroneously including Mother's work-related child care costs, the costs of the child's therapy and psychiatric treatment, and the child's tutoring expenses in its Form 14 calculation. We affirm.
The Judgment Decree of Dissolution of Marriage ("Judgment of Dissolution") entered on March 13, 2012, awarded Mother sole physical custody of the one child of the marriage (then age six), allowed supervised visitation with Father, and granted the parties joint legal custody. Father was ordered to pay $453.00 per month in child support. Each party was ordered to pay half of the uninsured medical expenses and half of the extracurricular expenses of their child.
In the intervening years, Mother routinely incurred expenses on behalf of the child for tutoring, and medication and psychological counseling and therapy expenditures that were not fully reimbursed by insurance. When requested by Mother, Father refused or failed to pay his share of these expenses as required by the Judgment of Dissolution.
In early 2017, at the request of Mother, the Division of Child Support Enforcement initiated a proceeding for the modification of child support. Father filed a counter-motion for modification requesting that custody be changed to joint physical custody, that he be allowed unsupervised parenting time with the child, that the child's residential designation be shifted to Father, that Mother be required to pay Father child support, or, in the alternative, requesting that Father's child support obligation be reduced. Father's pleadings also made allegations of abuse and/or neglect against Mother, necessitating the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Mother filed a counter-petition for modification in August of 2017, which included a request that she be awarded her attorney's fees.
A prolonged and contentious litigation ensued including voluminous discovery and numerous disputes between the parties. During the course of the litigation, Father's circumstances changed significantly. In May of 2018, Father was charged with multiple felonies in Anderson County, Kansas, relating to an arrest for driving while intoxicated. Father did not disclose the charges to Mother or the guardian ad litem. Upon becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to Father's felony charges, Mother propounded discovery attempting to gather additional information about the charges and Father's alleged conduct. Father sought an extension of time to respond to these discovery requests, and ultimately dismissed all of his claims the day before his discovery responses were due.
At trial, the court heard testimony and evidence from both parties relating to Mother's motion to modify and her request for assessment of attorney's fees. The trial court subsequently issued its Judgment of Modification, which increased Father's monthly support obligation and terminated some of his separate obligations to pay for a portion of the child's medical and counseling expenses. The trial court rejected both parties’ proposed Form 14s as incorrectly calculated, and completed its own Form 14. The trial court increased Father's monthly child support obligation from $453.00 to $1,161.00, and effectuated this modification retroactively to September 1, 2017. This increase was based in part on Father's increased income, and the inclusion of the costs of work-related child care, uninsured medical costs for psychiatric therapy, and tutoring expenses in the trial court's Form 14.2
With respect to uninsured medical costs (related to therapy and psychiatric treatment) and tutoring, the trial court found that these expenses were reasonable and necessary. Although the original Judgment of Dissolution required the parties to share these expenses equally, the parties experienced consistent difficulties in communicating and agreeing on which of these expenses were necessary. These difficulties had resulted in Father refusing or failing to reimburse Mother for one half of these expenses, as required by the original Judgment of Dissolution. To alleviate the difficulties between the parties, and to ensure that Mother would have the resources available to pay for these necessary expenses on behalf of the child, the trial court modified the original Judgment of Dissolution by including the uninsured medical expenses and tutoring in the appropriate sections of its Form 14. In doing so, the trial court relieved Father of any obligation to pay any portion of these expenses outside of his child support obligation.
With respect to Mother's request for assessment of her attorney's fees, the trial court indicated it had considered the financial resources of the parties, the merits of the case, and the conduct of the parties during the pendency of the litigation, and ordered Father to pay $20,000 of the $30,000 of attorney's fees that Mother had incurred during the litigation.
Father appeals to this court.
In a court-tried case, we will affirm the trial court's judgment "unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law." Collins v. Collins , 586 S.W.3d 282, 288 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Ritter v. Ritter , 920 S.W.2d 151, 159-60 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) ). "We view the evidence, and permissible inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment, and we disregard all contrary evidence and inferences." Jaco v. Jaco , 516 S.W.3d 429, 432 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (quoting Blue Ridge Bank & Trust Co. v. Trosen , 309 S.W.3d 812, 815 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) ). "We defer to the trial court's factual findings, giving due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses." Id. We review an award of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion. Collins , 586 S.W.3d at 288.
Father raises five points on appeal. In his first point, he argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay a portion of Mother's attorney's fees. In points two through five, he asserts that the trial court erred in determining his monthly child support obligation, by miscalculating his income, and by erroneously including Mother's work-related child care costs, the costs of the child's therapy and psychiatric treatment, and the child's tutoring expenses in its Form 14 calculation.
At the outset, we note that Father's points two through five contain multiple allegations of error and are, therefore, "multifarious in violation of Rule 84.04(d) and preserve[ ] nothing for appellate review." Koch v. Koch , 584 S.W.3d 347, 355 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019) (quoting In re Marriage of Adams , 414 S.W.3d 29, 33 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) ). Each of these points claim that the trial court's decision was: (1) against the weight of the evidence, (2) not supported by substantial evidence, and (3) an erroneous application of the law. Substantial evidence and against the weight of the evidence claims are distinct legal challenges which require "a distinct analytical framework[.]" Koch , 584 S.W.3d at 355 (quoting Houston v. Crider , 317 S.W.3d 178, 186-87 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) ). Father's brief fails to adhere to the analytical framework these distinct claims require. See id. (). In particular, Father's brief fails to make clear when his various arguments relate to the substantial evidence standard and when they relate to the against-the-weight-of-the-evidence standard. "Failure to follow the applicable framework means the appellant's argument is analytically useless and provides no support for his or her challenge." Id. (quoting Adams , 414 S.W.3d at 34 ).
"As a general rule, multifarious points preserve nothing for appellate review and, thus, are subject to dismissal." Fastnacht v. Ge , 488 S.W.3d 178, 184 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). However, because we prefer to decide cases on the merits, we nevertheless review Father's points two through five ex gratia based on our best efforts at understanding his arguments and to the extent that his arguments substantially follow an appropriate analytical framework. We first address Father's points two through five.
In his second point on appeal, Father argues that the trial court erred in determining that his income was $7,241.00 per month, because the trial court failed to consider his testimony and exhibits reflecting his past and present monthly income. This evidence, Father contends, was the most accurate predictor of his monthly income. As discussed above, Father's point is multifarious in that he attempts to raise three different legal challenges in a single point on appeal. Thus, Father has preserved nothing for appeal. Nevertheless, we address Father's point two ex gratia as to whether the trial court's determination was against the weight of the evidence.
"A claim that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence presupposes that there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment." Ivie v. Smith , 439 S.W.3d 189, 205 (Mo. banc 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial