State ex rel. Sanders v. Martin, 71027

• Decision Date: 20 May 1997
• Docket Number: No. 71027,71027
• Citation: 945 S.W.2d 641
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, ex rel., Mary SANDERS, Respondent, v. Jesse MARTIN, JR., Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 641

945 S.W.2d 641

STATE of Missouri, ex rel., Mary SANDERS, Respondent, v. Jesse MARTIN, JR., Appellant.

No. 71027.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Five.

May 20, 1997.

Edward J. Delworth, St. Louis, for appellant.

Michael S. Kisling, Jefferson City, for respondent.

AHRENS, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County upholding a decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer of the Division of Child Support Enforcement (agency). We reverse.

The marriage of Mary Sanders (mother) and Jesse Martin (father) was dissolved by a decree of dissolution on June 9, 1976. Mother was granted primary custody of the two minor children born of the marriage, Jesse Martin and Denelle Amand Martin. Father was ordered to pay child support of $25.00 per child per week.

Father fell behind on his child support payments, and on May 19, 1981, a wage assignment order was entered. The wage assignment directed father's employer to withhold $50.00 per week for current child support. The portion of the form order that would have sought recovery for past due child support was deleted from the application.

The support order should have terminated when Jesse attained the age of 22 on October 5, 1990, and when Denelle attained age 22 on April 22, 1992. When the order was not terminated on these dates, father filed a Motion to Terminate Wage Assignment and to Recover Overpayment of Child Support. On September 3, 1993, the court entered a consent judgment, signed by both parties, which terminated the wage assignment and granted father judgment for $5,575.00 for overpayment of child support.

In November of 1994, mother filed a motion to offset the consent judgment. In her motion, she sought to recover the accrued arrearage for missed support payments prior to the time the wage assignment was initiated. However, the trial court dismissed mother's motion as untimely.

Thereafter, on March 6, 1995, agency entered an Administrative Order on an Existing Order, finding that father was indebted to mother in the amount of $18,730.37 for back child support and interest.

Father timely requested a hearing on the order and a hearing was held on September 13, 1995. The hearing officer found father in arrears, but amended the amount due to $2,808.40. Father then appealed to the circuit court which upheld agency's decision. Father now appeals the decision of the circuit court.

When reviewing an administrative action, this court examines the decision of the administrative agency, not the judgment of the circuit court. State ex rel. Bramlet v. Owsley, 834 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Mo.App.1992). Judicial review of an administrative agency's decision is governed by §§ 536.100 to 526.140, RSMo 1994. Accordingly, we will uphold agency's decision unless it is in violation of constitutional provisions; in excess of its authority; unsupported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record; unauthorized by law; made upon unlawful procedure or without a fair trial; arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; or involves an abuse of discretion. § 536.140.2, RSMo 1994.

Father raises two points on appeal, one of which we find dispositive. Father argues that agency did not have the authority to enter an order because the "circuit court in the original dissolution of marriage action had determined that [mother] was indebted to [father] for overpayment of child support so that the decision was res judicata regarding any questions of support obligations between the parties." We agree.

Res judicata, or claim preclusion, precludes a party from litigating a claim against another party that has already been litigated....