Schuman v. Schuman
Decision Date | 10 November 2020 |
Docket Number | WD 83305 |
Citation | 612 S.W.3d 232 |
Parties | Lindsey M. SCHUMAN, Appellant, v. Joshua C. SCHUMAN, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Nicole M. Fisher, Kansas City, for Appelant.
Samantha I. Sader, Kansas City, Co-counsel for Appellant.
Larry V. Swall, Liberty, for Respondent.
Division Three: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge
Lindsey Schuman ("Mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cass County modifying child support and child custody following her divorce from Joshua Schuman ("Father"). We affirm.
Mother and Father were married on March 12, 2005, and two children were born during the union. On March 3, 2017, Mother and Father divorced. The judgment granting the dissolution provided for joint legal and physical custody of the children. The judgment also designated Mother's address in Raymore as the children's address for mailing and educational purposes. The parenting plan from the dissolution provided the parties with alternating holidays and summer parenting time with Father having overnight parenting time on every Tuesday and Friday as well as every other Saturday night. Father was given a 13% credit on the Form 14 for his parenting time, and he was ordered to pay monthly child support in the amount of $885.00.
Mother and Father co-parented well and informally agreed to use Father's address, the former marital home also located in Raymore, as the children's address for mailing and educational purposes so the children could attend school in Father's neighborhood. This arrangement worked satisfactorily until August of 2018, when Mother provided notice to Father that she was moving from her apartment in Raymore to a home in Overland Park, Kansas, with her boyfriend. Mother additionally expressed an intention to enroll the children in school in Kansas.
Father objected to Mother's relocation plan, preferring the children remain enrolled in their current school district. Father additionally filed a Motion to Modify the Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage through which he sought a modification to the custody arrangement, the termination of child support, and the designation of his address as the children's for mailing and educational purposes.
Both parties testified before the trial court and submitted their own parenting plans and Form 14 child support calculations.1 Mother offered three separate parenting plans, two of which designated her Kansas address as the children's for mailing and educational purposes and one listing Father's address in Raymore. Mother also submitted three Form 14s, each finding that she be the recipient of child support in differing amounts. Father offered his own parenting plan and Form 14. His parenting plan provided for his address to be used for mailing and educational purposes and afforded him additional parenting time. Father's Form 14 produced a presumed child support amount of $28 to be paid each month by Mother to Father.
The trial court overruled Father's objection to Mother's relocation2 and granted his motion to modify, finding that Mother's relocation was a change in circumstances warranting a change to the custody arrangement, child support obligation, and other provisions of the original dissolution judgment. The trial court adopted Father's parenting plan, which resulted in almost equal parenting time, and adopted his Form 14 but found the presumed child support amount was "unjust and inappropriate under the circumstances and in light of the parties sharing of other expenses related to the raising of the boys[.]" The trial court ordered that neither party owed child support to the other and that Father's previous child support obligation would cease on the date of the judgment.
Mother appeals from that judgment, but only as to child support.
"Our review of a modification of dissolution of marriage decree is limited to determining whether the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, whether it is against the weight of the evidence, or whether it erroneously declares or applies the law." Blomenkamp v. Blomenkamp , 462 S.W.3d 429, 432 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (citing Selby v. Smith , 193 S.W.3d 819, 824 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) ). When conducting our review, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, disregarding all contrary evidence and giving deference to the trial court's determinations of credibility." Id. (citing Mehra v. Mehra , 819 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Mo. banc 1991) ). Whether to modify child support is a decision that "lies within the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be reversed ‘only for abuse of discretion or misapplication of the law.’ " Id. (quoting Selby , 193 S.W.3d at 824 ).
Mother raises two claims of trial court error on appeal. In Point I, she alleges that the trial court erroneously applied the law by terminating Father's child support obligation arguing the law "should [ ] presume[ ] that the higher income parent is the party obligated to pay child support." In Point II, Mother asserts that termination of Father's child support obligation was against the weight of the evidence, arguing that Father's Form 14 contained a "mathematical error" and that the statutory factors contained in section 452.340, RSMo3 support a finding that Father should have been the party presumed to pay child support.
"To determine child support, Section 452.340, RSMo,[ ] and Rule 88.01 mandate the use of the Form 14 guidelines." Edwards v. Edwards , 475 S.W.3d 218, 222 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (citing Woolridge v. Woolridge , 915 S.W.2d 372, 378 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) ). Those guidelines require the trial court to "calculate the presumed correct child support amount pursuant to Form 14, either by accepting one of the parties’ proposed calculations, or by rejecting the parties proposed Form 14s and preparing its own." Id. (citing Roberts v. Roberts , 391 S.W.3d 921, 922 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) ). After considering all relevant circumstances,4 the trial court must then determine whether to rebut the presumed child support amount as unjust and inappropriate. Id. at 222-23. "If the [trial] court rejects the presumed amount as unjust and inappropriate, it then uses its discretion to determine the proper amount." Richardson v. Richardson , 545 S.W.3d 895, 897 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Thorp v. Thorp , 390 S.W.3d 871, 882 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) ).
While Mother's points on appeal take different legal paths, at their core, both are directed at the same alleged error – that the trial court erred by accepting Father's Form 14 because it designated her as the parent presumed to pay child support. Mother's focus is understandable as the designation in the Form 14 as to which parent is presumed to pay child support (and which parent is presumed to received child support) impacts the presumed child support calculation generated by the Form 14. However, for the reasons explained below, we reject Mother's claims of error.
In her first point, Mother asserts that the trial court erroneously applied the law when it found that she was the parent presumed to pay child support, arguing that "when parties are sharing joint legal and joint physical custody, exercising equal parenting time, and equally sharing expenses relating to the children, it should be presumed that the higher income parent is the party obligated to pay child support."
Mother fails to identify any specific statute or legal principle recognized under Missouri law establishing the presumption she now argues the trial court misapplied. In fact, such a presumption does not exist.5 This purely public policy-based argument does not reflect the current state of the law, and we will not find that the trial court erroneously applied a law that does not exist.
We recognize that the court's designation on Form 14 of one parent as the "Parent Receiving Support" and the other as the "Parent Paying Support" can dramatically affect the child-support calculation. For example, in this case the designation of Mother as the "Parent Paying Support" resulted in a presumed child support amount payable to Father which was de minimis , or zero. On the other hand, if Father had been designated as the "Parent Paying Support," and leaving the relevant numbers completely unchanged , Form 14 would have produced a presumed child support amount, payable to Mother , of almost $700 per month.
Even though the designation of the parties as payor and payee on Form 14 can so dramatically affect the child support calculation, Form 14 and its supporting instructions and commentary fail to provide any explicit guidance to the court or to the parties as to how to choose the parent designated as the "Parent Paying Support," and how to choose the parent designated as the "Parent Receiving Support." The choice of payor and recipient may be particularly difficult in a case like this one, where the parties have been awarded equal parenting time. Section 452.340.8 specifies that the Supreme Court's child support guidelines "shall address how the amount of child support shall be calculated when an award of joint physical custody results in the child or children spending equal or substantially equal time with both parents." In response to the statute, the Form 14 guidelines were amended to discuss the impact of an award of equal parenting time on the line 11 credit for periods of overnight visitation or custody exercised by the paying parent. The guidelines are silent, however, concerning the designation of the parents as payor or payee when substantially equal parenting time is awarded.
Under current law, the circuit court was not required to designate Mother as the "Parent Receiving Support," or to presume that she should be afforded that designation, simply because she had a lower income than Father. We have therefore rejected Mother's first Point, which argues...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schaberg v. Schaberg
...light most favorable to the judgment, disregarding all contrary evidence and giving deference to the trial court. Schuman v. Schuman, 612 S.W.3d 232, 235 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (citing Blomenkamp v. Blomenkamp, 462 S.W.3d 429, 432 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) ); Mehra v. Mehra, 819 S.W.2d 351, 353 (M......
-
Reichard v. Reichard
...(Mo. App. W.D. 2015)). Then, the trial court must "determine whether to rebut the presumed child support amount as unjust and inappropriate." Id. (citing Edwards, 475 S.W.3d at "When 'determining whether the trial court correctly calculated the [presumed child support award], this Court rev......
-
Reichard v. Reichard
...one of the parties’ proposed calculations, or by rejecting the parties proposed Form 14s and preparing its own." Schuman v. Schuman , 612 S.W.3d 232, 236 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (citing section 452.340; Rule 88.01; Edwards v. Edwards , 475 S.W.3d 218, 222 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) ). Then, the tria......