Quackenbush v. Hoyt, 20447
| Decision Date | 25 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 20447,20447 |
| Parties | Cheri Lynn (Hoyt) QUACKENBUSH, Respondent, v. Joseph Lee HOYT, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David G. Neal, Eminence, for appellant.
Craig A. Smith, Daniel, Clampett, Powell & Cunningham, Springfield, for respondent.
Joseph Lee Hoyt (Father) appeals an order modifying a dissolution of marriage judgment with respect to child support and a change in visitation with two of the children born of his marriage to Cheri Lynn Quackenbush (Mother). This court affirms.
Father's and Mother's marriage was dissolved July 28, 1988. Mother was awarded custody of their three children, Christy Malynne Hoyt, Brandon Joseph Hoyt and Austin David Hoyt. The children's ages were 10, 5 and 3, respectively, at the time of the dissolution of marriage. Father was granted visitation two weekends per month, six weeks in the summer, one week during Christmas vacation, alternating major holidays of Easter, Memorial Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving, and on other reasonable occasions established by mutual agreement of the parties. Father was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $190 per month per child and to maintain health insurance on the children. The judgment allowed Father to claim all three children as dependents for income tax purposes.
The modification that is the subject of this appeal is a second modification. The first modification was made August 8, 1991. Father's child support was increased to $1,152 per month for the three children, effective September 1, 1991. A joint custody order was entered; however, Mother remained the primary physical custodian of the children.
Both parties sought a second modification. Father sought custody of the children or, alternatively, modification of the amount of child support he was required to pay. Mother sought termination of Father's "visitation rights and privileges."
Following a lengthy hearing on the motions to modify, an order was entered modifying the dissolution judgment. The trial court found that Father had married again and a child, Bryan Cody Hoyt, had been born to him and his present wife, Sheila Hoyt; that Father adopted Justin Curtis Hoyt, Sheila's natural child; that both children were dependent on Father for support.
The trial court found that Father's income had been reduced since the last modification of the dissolution judgment. It further found that there was no substantial evidence that the reduction in Father's income had been intentionally or purposely caused by him to avoid paying child support.
The trial court continued the joint custody but made Father Christy's primary custodian and gave Mother scheduled periods of visitation with her. 1 Mother remained primary custodian of Brandon and Austin. The amount of child support payable by Father for the two boys was reduced based on Father's reduction in income. Father was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $505 per month. The trial court found $505 was the presumed child support amount calculated pursuant to Rule 88 and Form 14 stating, "[T]here exists no evidence in this case to indicate that the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate."
The trial court's order states that Mother, "although capable of being employed, is not now working and has no income." No income was imputed to her. The order further states:
In calculating [Father's] child support obligation, consideration must be given for the direct and unreimbursed support he provides for the child born to him and his new wife, Bryan Cody Hoyt, now in his custody, but the Court will not take into account any direct or unreimbursed support he provides for his adopted child, Justin Curtis Hoyt, now in his custody.
Father's first allegation of trial court error, Point I, contends the trial court erred in calculating the amount of presumed child support because it failed to follow the required procedures for calculating child support in "split custody" cases; that the trial court "ignored the support for the child in the father's custody entirely, and the [trial] court further erred in allowing as a credit the direct support the father provides for his child born to him during his subsequent marriage but discriminatorily eliminating any consideration of the support he provides for the child he adopted."
The trial court used one Form 14 to calculate presumed child support. Mother was designated as the custodial parent. No income was attributed to her. The child support to be paid by Father as non-custodial parent was calculated as follows:
Monthly gross income $2,276.00
Adjustments
a. Minus other Court or administratively ordered $-0-
child support payments being made
b. Minus other Court ordered spousal support $-0-
payments being made
c. Minus support responsibility for other children $348.00
in primary physical custody
--------
Adjusted gross income $1,926.00
----------
----------
Child support amount (From child support chart) $ 505.00
Presumed Child Support Amount $ 505.00
----------
----------
The date on the Form 14 was "1-19-94." The form contained the statement, "Submitted By: Court--under new guide lines." 2
Father testified that his income for 1992 was $27,306. That amount divided by 12 is $2,275.50. The amount of child support obligation for two children based on adjusted combined gross income of $1,900 is $517. The amount on the line on the chart immediately above the line for adjusted combined gross income of $1,900 is $505. The $505 amount is based on adjusted gross income of $1,850. The trial court apparently used an amount from the wrong line on the schedule.
There are two allegations of error set out in Point I. It alleges the trial court failed to follow applicable rules in figuring support in "split custody" cases. It also alleges the trial court incorrectly allowed Father a credit for "direct support" attributed to the son born of his second marriage, but erroneously failed to consider Father's support obligation to his adopted son.
The Comments for Use of the amended Form 14 prescribe how to calculate the presumed child support amount in "split custody" cases. Comment C states:
Split custody refers to those circumstances in which there is more than one child and each parent has physical custody of one or more but not all children. In those instances, the support amount is calculated by using two Forms 14. A Form 14 is completed for the number of children in the custody of one parent, using all income data and deductions for each parent, and disregarding the child(ren) in the custody of the other parent. The expenses that are in addition to the presumptive child support amount ... should be only for the child(ren) for whom the support amount is being calculated. In those instances where one parent is providing the costs of an item for all children, i.e., health insurance, the gross amount of such cost is to be prorated among the children for purposes of completing the form. The same process is then to be undertaken for the other parent. After completion of the multiple Form 14 worksheets, subtract the lesser amount from the greater. Use the difference between these two obligations as the child support order payable by the parent with the larger of the two obligations.
The trial court did not complete a second Form 14 worksheet. However, since Mother had no income, had a second Form 14 been completed, no part of the presumed child support would have been attributed to her. All of the amount of presumed child support calculated for Christy would have been attributed to Father. The failure to complete a second Form 14 is of no effect.
The second claim of error in Point I is directed to the trial court's decision to consider Father's obligation to support Bryan, his natural child with his present wife, but not to consider Father's obligation to support Justin, his adopted child. The trial court took a deduction for Bryan on the Form 14 worksheet as "support responsibility for other children in primary custody," but did not do so for Justin. Based on Father's monthly gross income of $2,276, had the trial court deducted the amount applicable to two "other children," $601 would have been deducted.
The trial court's decision to treat financial obligations for the natural child differently than those for the adopted child was erroneous. The line number on the Form 14 worksheet used to deduct "support responsibility for other children in primary physical custody" is 2c. Instructions for line 2c state, "The adjustment applies to a party's natural or adopted children, but not to stepchildren." [Emphasis added.]
Nevertheless, this error is of no consequence. Father was the moving party for purposes of seeking a reduction in child support. A parent who petitions to increase or decrease an order of support is not entitled to a deduction from his or her gross income for "the amount of financial responsibility" he or she has for "children who are in the primary physical custody of that parent and who are not children involved in [the modification] action." See In re Marriage of Bloom, 926 S.W.2d 512, 516-18 (Mo.App.1996).
The directions with respect to "Worksheet, line 2c" state:
Use of the adjustment is appropriate at the time of the establishment of a child support order or in a proceeding to modify an existing order. However, it may not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buchholz v. Buchholz
...S.W.2d 205, 212 (Mo.App. W.D.1999); State ex rel. Atkinson v. Anthony, 947 S.W.2d 832, 834-35 (Mo.App. W.D.1997); Quackenbush v. Hoyt, 940 S.W.2d 938, 943 (Mo.App. S.D.1997); Hansen v. Phenicie, 917 S.W.2d 618, 619 (Mo.App. E.D.1996); In re Marriage of Braun, 887 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Mo.App. E.......
-
Severn v. Severn
...205, 212 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) ; State ex rel. Atkinson v. Anthony , 947 S.W.2d 832, 834-35 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) ; Quackenbush v. Hoyt , 940 S.W.2d 938, 943 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997) ; Hansen v. Phenicie , 917 S.W.2d 618, 619 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) ; In re Marriage of Braun , 887 S.W.2d 776, 779 (M......
-
Lavalle v. Lavalle
...Clarke, 950 S.W.2d 11, 13-14 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997); see also Thomas v. Thomas, 989 S.W.2d 629 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999); Quackenbush v. Hoyt, 940 S.W.2d 938 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997). It is clear from the record that Mother was pregnant at the time of the evidentiary hearing, which was conducted withi......
-
Thomas v. Thomas, WD
...trial court had sufficient evidence to conclude it was in the child's best interest to have the mother stay at home. Quackenbush v. Hoyt, 940 S.W.2d 938, 942-3 (Mo.App.1997). The court was not required to impute income to With regard to argument b), "[a] trial court cannot consider the inco......