Torrence v. Torrence, 55114
| Decision Date | 01 August 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 55114,55114 |
| Citation | 774 S.W.2d 880 |
| Parties | Maurice E. TORRENCE, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Virginia M. TORRENCE, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Mark C. Piontek, Washington, Richard B. Dempsey, Union, for appellant/cross-respondent.
Rory Ellinger, O'Fallon, for respondent/cross-appellant.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dated March 28, 1988, entered after a consolidated hearing called on cross-motions to modify and wife's motion for contempt. Appellant/cross-respondent (hereinafter Wife) asserts only one point of error on appeal. Wife contends that the motion court's contempt order as to money damages assessed against respondent/cross-appellant (hereinafter Husband), is not supported by the evidence. Husband asserts two points of error on appeal. First, he contends that the motion court's order finding him in contempt of court for nonpayment of medical, dental, and educational bills was in error. Husband also asserts that the motion court erred in retroactively increasing his child support payment to the date of Wife's motion to modify. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
The record reveals that Maurice E. Torrence and Virginia M. Torrence obtained a decree of dissolution of marriage in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County on December 17, 1979. Husband and Wife reached a settlement agreement which was incorporated into and made a part of the dissolution decree. The decree ordered Husband to pay Wife the sum of $140.00 per month as child support for the parties' minor child, Jeffrey Scott Torrence. In addition, Husband was ordered to pay one-half of the medical and dental expenses of his son not covered by insurance at the place of employment of either spouse. Furthermore, the decree ordered Husband
In July of 1985, Wife filed a motion to modify the original divorce decree. She requested the motion court to increase child support to $780.00 per month due to substantial and continuing changes in circumstances. Husband filed a cross-motion to modify in August of 1985. He included a request for additional provisions for temporary custody and visitation, and an answer of general denial to Wife's motion.
Wife filed a Motion for Contempt on March 17, 1986. She requested an order of the court holding Husband in contempt for failure to pay half of the educational, medical and dental expenses for Jeffrey and for refusal to pay any of his educational costs.
The motions were consolidated for a hearing which, due to docketing difficulties, was not held until March 28, 1988. The court found the amount of child support ordered by the original decree unreasonable due to a substantial change of circumstances in the needs and health of Jeffrey. The court considered the evidence in light of RSMo §§ 452.340 and 452.370 (1986) and found Husband had sufficient funds to make an increased child support payment in the amount of $275.00 per month. The court further ordered the increased child support retroactive to August 1985, and denied Husband's motion to modify.
The motion court also found that Husband agreed to Jeffrey's attending Christian Brothers College (CBC) and that he failed to pay one-half of the total educational costs of $6,587.00. The court further found that Husband intentionally failed to pay one-half of all medical and dental bills in the amount of $2,444.72. The court found that Husband, with full knowledge of his obligations under the decree, and with the ability to pay, willfully and contumaciously refused to pay the educational, medical and dental bills as ordered. Therefore, the motion court held Husband in contempt and ordered him to pay $4,515.86 as his share of these expenses. The record does not show what action if any, was taken on the contempt order after the judgment was entered.
Both Wife and Husband challenge the validity of the motion court's contempt order. Wife asserts in her point on appeal that the motion court, after finding Husband in contempt, awarded her money damages which were clearly wrong, unreasonably determined and underinclusive. Wife contends that the uncontradicted evidence shows that the total educational and medical expenses of which the original dissolution decree ordered Husband to pay one-half, were $19,012.29. Wife argues that the motion court inadvertently disregarded $9,980.57 in uninsured medical expenses when it ordered Husband to pay, as his one-half share, only $4,515.86. In Husband's first point on appeal, he asserts that insufficient evidence was presented at the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marriage of Crow and Gilmore
...516, 518 (Mo.App.1990); Saeuberlich v. Saeuberlich, 782 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Mo.App. 1989); Houttuin, 780 S.W.2d at 713; Torrence v. Torrence, 774 S.W.2d 880, 881 (Mo.App.1989); City of Florissant, 714 S.W.2d at 873; Creamer v. Banholzer, 694 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Mo.App.1985); Niehoff, 692 S.W.2d at ......
-
Smetana v. Smetana, WD
...of a decree, at a time subsequent to the date of filing. State v. Ramsey, 820 S.W.2d 663, 667 (Mo.App.1991) (citing, Torrence v. Torrence, 774 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Mo.App.1989)). Without a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the circuit court's determination as to the effective date of a chil......
-
Snyder v. Snyder
...jurisdiction to make such an order. This court will, thus, review this portion of the order sua sponte. See Torrence v. Torrence, 774 S.W.2d 880, 881 (Mo.App., E.D.1989). The Missouri Supreme Court recently held that, absent a timely appeal or an unruled motion for a new trial, the judgment......
-
Beeler v. Beeler, WD
...the decree, at a given time subsequent to the date of filing, is a matter within the discretion of the trial court." Torrence v. Torrence, 774 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Mo.App.1989). "We must defer to the motion court's decision in this case absent a clear abuse of discretion." Id. The motion to mod......