Roberts v. Roberts, 37965
| Decision Date | 24 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 37965,37965 |
| Parties | Carolyn J. ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William L. ROBERTS, Defendant-Respondent. . Louis District, Division Two |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Donald R. Rhodes, Bloomfield, for petitioner-appellant.
Alice L. C. Kramer, Hillsboro, for defendant-respondent.
Petitioner Carolyn J. Roberts appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to respondent William L. Roberts. There is no challenge by her as to that part of the order dissolving the marriage, providing child custody, or dividing the marital property. She contends the court erred in the amount it awarded her for child support; in awarding respondent the income tax deduction for the three children; and in failing to allow her attorney's fees.
The trial court set off the following marital property to petitioner: 1974 Maverick (subject to lien), all the household furnishings, and one-half the proceeds of the sale of the house. The husband was awarded by the court: one-half the proceeds of the sale of the house, a 1970 Ford pickup, camping equipment, a boat, motor and trailer. The court gave primary custody of the minor children to petitioner. Respondent was given temporary custody twenty-six weekends per year, every other holiday, and two weeks during the summer vacation period. He was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $20.00 per week per child.
The trial court's judgment must be sustained by this court "unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law." Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32(1) (Mo.banc 1976). We affirm.
The parties were married in 1959. Three children were born of the marriage, ages 14, 10 and 4 at the date of trial. The wife worked outside the home during most of the marriage.
In 1973 the petitioner became a real estate sales person and in early 1975 received her Real Estate Broker's license. She was employed by Ozark Realty and for 1975 received gross real estate commissions in the amount of $8,402.17. Out of this she was required to pay her own Social Security, State and Federal Income Taxes. The husband is a production artist for CoMun Company in Fenton, and his take-home pay was $11,256.00 a year.
Section 452.340, RSMo., provides:
" * * * the court may order either or both parents owing a duty of support to a child of the marriage to pay an amount reasonable or necessary for his support, * * * after considering all relevant factors including:
(1) The father's primary responsibility for support of his child;
(2) The financial resources of the child;
(3) The financial resources of the custodial parent;
(4) The standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved;
(5) The physical and emotional condition of the child, and his educational needs; and
(6) The financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent."
The statute provides that among the factors to be considered is the father's primary responsibility to support the children, but the mother may also be called upon to provide support. The award of child support is a matter properly within the sound discretion of the trial court. Larison v. Larison, 524 S.W.2d 159, 161 (Mo.App.1975).
Respondent's total monthly expenses were approximately $550.00 not including child support. Petitioner testified to total monthly expenses for her and the children in the amount of between $814.00 and $833.00. She stated that the children's share of the expenses was "probably about half"; however, included in her total expenses were her own medical insurance premiums, auto insurance premium, transportation expenses, car payments and medical expenses. (Husband carries medical insurance on children.)
The court's award of $20.00 per week per child instead of $25.00 as requested by petitioner was not an abuse of discretion.
Petitioner requested that the trial court allow her to take the income tax exemption for the minor children; however, the court made this award to the respondent. She claims on appeal that the court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate which of the two parents is entitled to the allowable income tax exemption and that on making the order it abused its discretion. 26 U.S.C.A. § 152(e)(2), which was in effect at the time of the trial of this case, provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Echele v. Echele
...that Missouri courts have jurisdiction over the question of which party receives the federal income tax exemption, Roberts v. Roberts, 553 S.W.2d 305, 307 (Mo.App.1977); Niederkorn v. Niederkorn, 616 S.W.2d 529, 533 (Mo.App.1981), these pronouncements were made under previous provisions of ......
-
Davis v. Fair
...653 (Ind.Ct.App.1985); Hiland v. Hiland, supra; Ruiz v. Ruiz, 668 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no writ); Roberts v. Roberts, 553 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.Ct.App.1977); Pettitt v. Pettitt, 261 So.2d 687 (La.Ct.App.1972); Vinet v. Vinet, 184 So.2d 33 Neither the cases cited by Fair nor those......
-
Westerhof v. Westerhof, Docket No. 71176
...770 (1981); Niederkorn v. Niederkorn, 616 S.W.2d 529 (Mo.App.1981); Grider v. Grider, 376 So.2d 1103 (Ala.Civ.App.1979); Roberts v. Roberts, 553 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.App.1977); Pettitt v. Pettitt, 261 So.2d 687 (La.App.1972); Kolb v. Kolb, 479 S.W.2d 81 (Tex.Civ.App.1972). In reaching its determi......
-
Niederkorn v. Niederkorn
...Missouri courts have jurisdiction over the question of which party receives the federal income tax exemption. Roberts v. Roberts, 553 S.W.2d 305, 307 (Mo.App.1977). In Roberts, the petitioner had requested such an award from the trial court but we cannot conclude that the absence of a speci......