Schutter v. Seibold

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Thomas N. Chapman, Judge
• Citation: Schutter v. Seibold, 632 S.W.3d 820 (Mo. App. 2021)
• Decision Date: 24 August 2021
• Docket Number: WD 84011
• Parties: Jennifer L. SCHUTTER, Respondent, v. Paul J. SEIBOLD, Appellant.

632 S.W.3d 820

Jennifer L. SCHUTTER, Respondent,

v.Paul J. SEIBOLD, Appellant.

WD 84011

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: August 24, 2021

Jonathan Sternberg, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Jennifer Schutter, Southlake, TX, Respondent Acting Pro Se.

Before Division One: Anthony Rex Gabbert, P.J., Edward R. Ardini, Jr., and Thomas N. Chapman, JJ.

Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

Paul Seibold ("Father") appeals from the judgment dismissing domestic proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA"), sections 452.700 to 452.930, RSMo 2016. Father raises two points on appeal. He contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law that he requested under Rule 73.01(c) and (2) dismissing his family access motion and motion to quash Jennifer Schutter's ("Mother") garnishment of his wages under sections 452.745 and 452.770. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Factual and Procedural Background

Father and Mother were married in November 2002 and had one child ("Son"), born in July 2009. Son is a special needs child who requires extensive medical care and 24-hour assistance and supervision. Father is an information technology sales specialist with Cisco Systems. Mother is a physician.

Mother filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and a trial was held over several days in 2013 (original Platte County Circuit Court Case No. 12AE-CV00757). On March 25, 2014, the trial court entered an "Amended Judgment," dissolving the marriage and awarding Mother sole legal custody and awarding the parties joint physical custody of Son (subcase no. 12AE-CV00757-01). Father was ordered to pay $2,620 per month in child support, plus an arrearage of $31,410.

On June 19, 2014, the trial court granted Mother's post-trial motion to re-open the evidence and set aside the March 2014 Amended Judgment as to the property and debt division and attorney's fees and expenses. On September 2, 2014, on Mother's motion, and with Father's agreement, the trial court issued a "Temporary Injunction" restraining Father from exercising unsupervised parenting time with Son and giving Mother temporary sole legal and physical custody of Son until further order of the court.

On May 20, 2016, after hearing further evidence, the trial court issued what it entitled a "Nunc Pro Tunc Amended Judgment" regarding the property, debt, and fee issues (in subcase no 12AE-CV00757-02). The trial court ordered Father to pay Mother a cash equalization payment of $156,098. The judgment stated that all orders regarding Son were contained in the March 2014 Amended Judgment and the September 2014 Temporary Injunction.

Father appealed to this court, challenging, among other things, aspects of the property division. On November 16, 2016, pending Father's appeal, the trial court entered a temporary order allowing Mother to relocate with Son to Texas. Thereafter, both parties filed motions to modify.

Beginning in August 2017, Mother filed four garnishment applications on Father's wages with his employer (Cisco Systems) to collect the property division and attorney's fees judgments entered against Father in the dissolution (in subcase 12AE-CV00757-02).

This court found that the trial court had (in its 2016 Nunc Pro Tunc Amended Judgment) erred in classifying one of Father's retirement accounts as marital property and in awarding it to Mother. We remanded the case to the trial court to set aside the account to Father as his nonmarital property and to adjust the marital property division; and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Schutter v. Seibold , 540 S.W.3d 494, 506 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018).

On remand, on April 25, 2018, the trial court entered its "First Amended Nunc Pro Tunc Amended Judgment" regarding property, debt, and fees (in subcase 12AE-CV00757-02). In its re-division of marital property, the trial court ordered Father to pay Mother a cash equalization payment of $156,098 plus another $26,457 to offset the nonmarital retirement account awarded to Father. The judgment again stated that all orders regarding Son were contained in the March 2014 Amended Judgment and the September 2014 Temporary Injunction.

On January 17, 2019, the trial court entered a "Judgment of Modification" approving Mother's relocation to Texas with Son and modifying custody and child support. It awarded Mother sole legal and physical custody, and ordered Father to pay $3,296 per month in child support (in subcase no. 12AE-CV00757-04). Three weeks later, the trial court set aside the Judgment of Modification on its own motion. On March 7, 2019, the trial court entered a "First Amended Judgment of Modification," which approved Mother's relocation to Texas with Son, awarded Mother sole legal custody and the parties joint physical custody of Son, and ordered Father to pay $3,000 per month in child support. The March 2019 modification judgment also provided a parenting time schedule for Father's supervised visits in Kansas City and Texas, and ordered that Father have access to Son's medical and school records.

The instant action began on November 1, 2019, when Father filed a motion to modify alleging a substantial and continuing change of circumstances justifying modification of custody and support, claiming that Mother had denied all contact between Father and Son and claiming significant changes in the parties’ incomes (subcase no. 12AE-CV00757-07). In an amended motion, Father also alleged that Mother was improperly medicating Son and preventing Father from having access to Son's medical records. On December 5, 2019, Father also filed a motion for a family access order, which was filed within the modification subcase file (subcase no. 12AE-CV00757-07). In his family access motion, Father alleged that Mother was violating the March 2019 First Amended Judgment of Modification by denying him all contact and parenting time with Son.

On January 3, 2020, Mother filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that on October 11, 2019, the March 2019 First Amended Judgment of Modification was registered in Tarrant County, Texas; that Father was served with the Tarrant County, Texas registration of foreign judgment and provided with specific instructions and a time period to object to the registration; that, to the best of her knowledge, Father did not object to the registration; and that the time for Father to object had passed.¹ She argued that the appropriate jurisdiction to file pleadings was in the case in Tarrant County, Texas, and asked the court to "dismiss with prejudice all actions in this case." In her first amended motion to dismiss, Mother argued that the trial court lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction because Mother and the child no longer reside in Missouri and substantial evidence no longer exists here. Alternatively, she argued that if the court found that it still has jurisdiction, it should decline to exercise jurisdiction because Texas is a more convenient forum.

On May 26, 2020, Mother filed (in subcase 12AE-CV00757-02) a "Statement of Judgment Balance Remaining Due," reporting receipt of $0 from Cisco Services during any previous reporting periods and $10,393.56 in the previous six months, and a total unsatisfied judgment balance remaining due of $53,638.20. On May 28, 2020, Father filed an amended motion for temporary orders of custody and child support. On June 11, 2020, (in subcase no. 12AE-CV00757-07) Father filed a motion to quash garnishment of his wages, alleging that Mother was garnishing more than the law allowed.²

On July 20, 2020, a videoconference hearing was held. Mother, who was pro se , took up her motion to dismiss along with other motions. Father, who was also pro se , sought to take up his motion to modify along with other motions. The trial court heard testimony and argument from Mother and Father, as well as argument from the guardian ad litem, regarding Mother's motion to dismiss. Father opposed Mother's motion to dismiss, arguing that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction over the case and that the registration of the judgment in Texas did not change that. The guardian ad litem argued that Texas was a more appropriate forum because it had been Son's home state for three years and was the location of his schooling, activities, and doctors and that she had not been able to perform her duties as guardian ad litem because she was not able to see the child or communicate with his academic and medical providers. At the end of the hearing, the trial court stated that it would "consider the jurisdictional and forum issues before we do anything else," and depending on how it ruled on that, "we'll decide how best to proceed."

On July 21, 2020, the trial court entered an "Order Declining Jurisdiction and Order Staying Proceedings," finding that it did not have exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under section 452.745.1(1), and that even if it did have jurisdiction, jurisdiction should be declined under section 452.770, and that Tarrant County, Texas, was a more appropriate forum for the issues concerning the care, visitation, custody, and control of Son. It stayed the case for 30 days so that the parties could register or file whatever action in Texas they deemed appropriate, at the end of which "all pending matters here in Missouri should be dismissed." It also ordered a copy of the order transmitted to the case in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. Father filed a motion to amend the order and a motion to denominate it a "judgment."

On August 20, 2020, the trial court entered a "Judgment of Dismissal," which confirmed its Order finding that it lacked exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under section 452.745.1(1), but that, even if it did have jurisdiction, it should be declined under section 452.770, and that Tarrant County, Texas, was a more...