Spencer v. Spencer, No. 18375
| Decision Date | 26 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 18375 |
| Citation | 865 S.W.2d 824 |
| Parties | Terrina Renee SPENCER (Smith), Petitioner-Appellant, v. William Ray SPENCER, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joanna V. Billingsley, Ozark, for petitioner-appellant.
In September 1991, the marriage of Terrina Spencer and William Spencer was dissolved by judgment of the Circuit Court of Christian County. Terrina was awarded primary physical custody of two minor children, Dustin and Kodey, and the parties were granted their joint legal custody. William was ordered to pay Terrina monthly child support in the amount of $180 per child.
In February 1992, William filed a motion to modify the judgment. Terrina filed a "Cross-Motion to Modify," which requested an increase in child support. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, and 15 witnesses testified. The transcript exceeds 300 pages. The trial court received into evidence nine exhibits offered by Terrina and three exhibits offered by William.
On August 13, 1992, the trial court entered the order which is the basis for this appeal. The order modified provisions of the original decree with respect to visitation of the children. With respect to Terrina's request for an increase in child support, the order recited that the court "has accorded due consideration to the presumed child support amount calculated in accordance with the Forms 14, Missouri Child Support Guidelines, submitted by both parties." The order further recited that the court found "application of the Form 14 presumed amount of child support to be paid by [William] would be inappropriate."
The decretal portion of the order included the following:
[A]fter considering applicable law and the circumstances of the parties and minor children, including the income, expenses, and financial circumstances of both parties and the reasonable needs and best interests of the minor children, the original Decree of Dissolution of Marriage of September 30, 1991, is hereby modified as follows:
1. [William's] monthly child support obligation shall not be increased. However, [William] shall be fully responsible for all uninsured medical and dental expenses for said minor children....
Terrina's sole point is that the trial court erred in failing to award child support in the total amount of $513 monthly for the support of the two children because that was the "presumed child support amount" shown on Form 14 filed by each of the parties.
The statement of facts portion of Terrina's brief makes no mention of the testimony of any witness. That statement contains only four sentences dealing with the evidence. Three of those sentences are to the effect that each party filed Form 14 and William filed his income and expense statement. The fourth sentence reads: "[William] presented no evidence to rebut the prima facie showing of changed circumstances made by [Terrina]."
"On appeal, a trial court judgment is presumed valid," Delaney v. Gibson, 639 S.W.2d 601, 604 (Mo.banc 1982), and the burden is on appellant to demonstrate incorrectness of the judgment. Id. When an exhibit is omitted from the transcript and is not filed with the appellate court, the intendment and content of the exhibit will be taken as favorable to the trial court's ruling and as unfavorable to the appellant. Doyle v. Doyle, 786 S.W.2d 620, 621 (Mo.App.1990). To similar effect see Roberts v. Alford, 832 S.W.2d 331, 332 (Mo.App.1992); Skyles v. Burge, 830 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Mo.App.1992).
"The role of Form 14 in a proceeding to modify a child support order is defined by § 452.370, RSMo Cum.Supp.1990, and Rule 88.01." In re Marriage of Luna, 855 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Mo.App.1993). 1
Section 452.370, as amended 1990, provides, in pertinent part:
1. ... the provisions of any decree respecting maintenance or support may be modified only upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable.... If the application of the guidelines and criteria set forth in supreme court rule 88.01 to the financial circumstances of the parties would result in a change of child support from the existing amount by twenty percent or more, then a prima facie showing has been made of a change of circumstances so substantial and continuing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shadow Lake of Noel, Inc. v. Supervisor of Liquor Control, 19401
...content of the exhibits will be taken as favorable to the trial court's ruling and as unfavorable to the appellant. Spencer v. Spencer, 865 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Mo.App.1993). To the same effect, see In re Marriage of Gourley, 811 S.W.2d 13, 16 n. 2 Here, the nine exhibits that Shadow Lake asser......