Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 53880
| Decision Date | 04 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 53880,53880 |
| Parties | Albert RAMSDELL, Appellant, v. Kathleen RAMSDELL, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Mark D. Hirschfeld, St. Louis, for appellant.
William R. Gartenberg, Clayton, for respondent.
Husband appeals the trial court's order sustaining wife's motion to modify their dissolution decree and the results of an accounting rendered upon husband's motion for the same. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Husband and wife's marriage was dissolved in July 1980. Wife was granted custody of the parties' one-year-old child and husband was granted visitation rights. Husband was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $35 per week. In accordance with a settlement agreement, husband was to transfer his interest in property located at 8519 Concord Place (Concord property) to wife, and upon sale of the same, wife was to divide the proceeds equally with husband.
Wife received very few child support payments from husband, and the payments had stopped entirely by December 1980, when the Concord property was sold. Wife sold the property for a down payment of $10,000, monthly payments of $135 per month for four to five years, and a final payment of $5,000. Wife told husband she would apply his portion of the proceeds to his child support obligations, although husband does not appear to have agreed to this arrangement. In any event, none of the proceeds were ever paid to husband.
On February 28, 1986, wife filed a motion to modify the decree alleging since the original decree the needs of the child have increased, the cost of living has increased, and husband's income has increased. Wife asked that child support be increased from $35 per week to $75 per week. Husband responded by filing a counter-motion to modify, asking for increased rights of temporary custody and access to the child's school, medical and dental records. Husband also filed a motion for an accounting regarding the sale of the Concord property.
The court sustained wife's motion for modification, increasing the child support to $60 per week, and ordered that husband pay wife's attorney's fees in the amount of $900. Husband's counter-motion to modify was partially sustained in that he was granted longer periods of temporary custody. His motion for an accounting was also sustained. The results of the accounting consisted of the following:
The Court finds that since the decree of dissolution the sum of Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Forty Dollars ($15,140.00) is due [wife] as and for child support. The Court finds that [husband] is entitled to credit in the sum of Eleven Thousand One Hundred and Forty-Five Dollars ($11,145.00) from the sale of the family home and the sum of Three Hundred Fifty-Six Dollars ($356.00) for cash payments made, leaving a balance due [wife] of child support in the sum of Three Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty-Nine Dollars ($3,639.00).
Husband appeals the increase in child support, the award of attorney's fees and the results of the accounting which left him owing wife.
Husband first asserts the trial court's modification of the dissolution decree by increasing child support was not supported by sufficient evidence. More specifically he argues there was little or no evidence of an increase in the needs of the child, or an increase in his income to warrant modification.
In order to warrant modification of a child support award, a petitioner must demonstrate a change of circumstances so substantial and continuing that it makes the original award unreasonable. § 452.370.1, RSMo 1986; Barnes v. Barnes, 739 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Mo.App.1987). "Changed circumstances to support a modification must be supported and proven by detailed evidence." Titze v. Cunningham, 661 S.W.2d 623, 624 (Mo.App.1983).
The record on appeal discloses a lack of evidence from mother supporting the modification. There was no evidence of specific cost increases since the original order. Mother testified generally that costs had increased. She also stated that the minor child was in a private school because of the benefits of smaller class size. The child had been tested for dyslexia the previous year. Mother's income and expense statement was not received into evidence and was, therefore, not properly before the court. See Hopkins v. Hopkins, 664 S.W.2d 273, 274 (Mo.App.1984) ().
Although we recognize that the needs of a child increase with age and inflation, a more detailed explanation of the child's expenses and how they have increased since the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welker v. Welker
...needs and in the awarded support is an abuse of discretion. Harding v. Harding, 826 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Mo.App.1992); Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 758 S.W.2d 202, 204 (Mo.App.1988). Husband's first sub-point is fatally flawed in two respects. First, the record is bare as to evidence indicating that $......
-
Halupa v. Halupa
...statement was not offered nor received into evidence, and was, therefore, not properly before the trial court. Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 758 S.W.2d 202, 204 (Mo.App.1988). Although wife did file her income and expense statement with her petition, the mere filing of a document does not put it be......
-
Ker v. Ker, 15855
...pretrial exhibit. Ordinarily the filing of an exhibit listing expenses does not put it before the court as evidence. Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 758 S.W.2d 202, 204 (Mo.App.1988). It is equally true that a party may not conduct himself throughout a trial with the understanding that a fact is not ......
-
Chapman v. Chapman, 62634
...listing expenses does not put it before the court as evidence. Ker v. Ker, 776 S.W.2d 873, 878 (Mo.App.1989); Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 758 S.W.2d 202, 204 (Mo.App.1988); Hopkins v. Hopkins, 664 S.W.2d 273, 274 The only evidence of wife's expenses was adduced by wife's attorney while cross-exam......