Le v. Le
| Decision Date | 14 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 108963,ED 108963 |
| Citation | 638 S.W.3d 583 |
| Parties | Khoi M. LE, Appellant, v. Brenda M. LE, n/k/a Patterson, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
FOR APPELLANT: Eric M. Tuncil, Mary Ann Weems, Law Offices of Mary Ann Weems, 7751 Carondelet Avenue, Suite 505, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.
FOR RESPONDENT: Brittany D. Kozal, Family Advocates Law Firm, LLC, 601 South Lindbergh Boulevard, Frontenac, Missouri 63131.
GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Robert N. Hamilton, 2016 South Big Bend Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63117.
Khoi Le ("Father") appeals the trial court's denial of his motions for (1) termination of child support, (2) reimbursement for overpaid child support, (3) the trial court's grant of Brenda Patterson's ("Mother") motion to hold Father in contempt for failure to pay outstanding support obligations, and (4) the trial court's grant of attorney's fees to Mother.
Father raises four points on appeal. In Point I, Father argues the trial court erred by finding he had to pay his son's ("L.K.") college and housing expenses under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.340.5.1 In Point II, Father argues the trial court erred by finding he owed $14,363.18 in post-secondary education costs and holding him in contempt for failure to pay. In Point III, Father argues the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his objection to the admission of L.K.’s medical records. In Point IV, Father argues the trial court erred by ordering him to pay $26,871.06 of Mother's attorney's fees.
We affirm the judgment and award of attorney's fees.
Father and Mother have one child, L.K., born in 1999. The parties divorced in 2008. Father is a cardiologist and earns over $1,000,000 per year.2 Mother is a nurse practitioner and earns approximately $85,000 per year. L.K. is a college student. He attended Missouri University of Science and Technology ("Missouri S&T") from the Fall 2017 semester until the Spring 2019 semester but has since transferred to St. Louis Community College. L.K. has diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
("ADHD"), bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, and dysgraphia. L.K.’s disorders affect his performance in school and are treated with therapy and medication.
Father's support obligation is governed by a 2014 modification to the parties’ dissolution judgment, which requires him to pay $3,000 per month in child support. The judgment further requires Father to pay for 80% of L.K.’s medical care, extracurricular activities, and post-secondary education costs, "not to exceed the cost for in-state tuition, room and board at the University of Missouri-Columbia in the applicable years, for a maximum of five years." In 2017, L.K. graduated from high school and elected to attend Missouri S&T to pursue an engineering degree.
In August 2017, Mother moved to "cite and punish [Father] for contempt and to reduce amount owed to judgment," alleging Father failed to comply with his financial obligations to L.K. In September 2017, Father moved to reduce his monthly support obligation under the dissolution judgment. The parties conducted discovery until, in October 2018, Father failed to timely respond to Mother's discovery requests. Due to concerns Father's delay would cause L.K. to miss payment deadlines for his upcoming semester at Missouri S&T, the parties entered a consent order for Father to pay $14,000 toward L.K.’s education costs in December 2018. The consent order did not waive the parties’ right to contest whether and how much Father should have had to pay.
On February 20, 2019, Father moved to terminate his child support obligation and to be reimbursed for past overpayment. Father alleged L.K. emancipated in January 2018 because he failed to complete at least twelve credit hours in the Spring 2018 semester and did not qualify for work-based or disability-based exceptions to the credit hour requirements of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.340.5. Although L.K. enrolled in classes worth fifteen credit hours in the Spring 2018 semester, he failed to complete at least twelve hours because he dropped a four-credit calculus course to avoid a poor grade. Although L.K. completed fourteen credit hours in the Fall 2018 semester, he again failed to complete at least twelve credit hours in the Spring 2019 semester. L.K. made up his missed credits by enrolling in and completing courses at St. Louis Community College during the summers of 2018 and 2019.
The trial court heard Father's motions to terminate support and for reimbursement and Mother's motion to hold Father in contempt for failure to comply with the court's orders on October 9, 2019. The trial court found L.K. complied with the enrollment requirements of section 452.340.5 because his developmental disabilities excepted him from its full-time enrollment requirements; denied Father's motions to terminate child support and for reimbursement; found Father has a continuing obligation to financially support L.K. under the terms of the 2014 modification order; found Father in contempt for failure to comply with his support obligations; and ordered Father to reimburse Mother $6,122.58 for medical expenses, $643.58 for extracurricular activities, $14,363.18 for educational expenses, $4,000 in child support after crediting Father's $14,000 payment from the December 2018 consent order, and $26,871.06 for Mother's attorney's fees.
This appeal follows. Additional factual and procedural history will be provided below as necessary to address Appellant's claims.
In a court-tried case, the trial court's judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). "We view all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prevailing party." Hughes v. Hughes , 505 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). We "exercise extreme caution in considering whether a judgment should be set aside on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence and will do so only upon a firm belief that the judgment is wrong." Stuart v. Ford , 292 S.W.3d 508, 514 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009). We defer to the trial court's superior opportunity to judge witness credibility and the court could believe or disbelieve all, part, or none of any witness's testimony. Id.
When considering a motion to modify or terminate maintenance obligations, the trial court has "considerable discretion, and the appellant must prove an abuse of that discretion." Arndt v. Arndt , 519 S.W.3d 890, 899 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). Similarly, "the admissibility of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court; therefore, there can be no error absent a showing that the court abused its discretion." Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC v. Schultz , 449 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). "Even if we find an abuse of discretion, we will reverse only if the prejudice resulting from the improper admission of evidence is outcome-determinative." Holdeman v. Stratman , 556 S.W.3d 46, 50 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018).
"We presume the trial court's ruling is correct, and reverse only when that ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration." Id. The trial court has not abused its discretion if reasonable persons can differ about the propriety of the trial court's decision. Id.
Attorney's fee awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bryant v. Bryant , 351 S.W.3d 681, 691 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). An award of attorney's fees is an abuse of discretion and requires reversal only if it is "clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration." City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand , 599 S.W.3d 466, 477 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020).
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.340.5 provides parental support obligations may continue beyond age eighteen "so long as the child enrolls for and completes at least twelve hours of credit each semester, not including the summer semester" in an institution of vocational or higher education, subject to multiple exceptions. As relevant here, section 452.340.5 exempts students with qualifying disabilities from the twelve-credit hour per semester requirement.
L.K. failed to complete at least twelve credit hours in the Spring 2018 and Spring 2019 semesters. The parties dispute L.K.’s eligibility for the disability exception under section 452.340.5. The exception provides students with a developmental disability as defined in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 630.0053 need not meet the twelve-credit hour requirement if they remain enrolled in their program and meet the other requirements of section 452.340.5.
The trial court relied on the testimony and records of Dr. Ann Glowinski and Dr. David Brunts, and found L.K.’s ADHD, bipolar disorder
, anxiety, and dysgraphia constituted developmental disabilities under section 630.005. Dr. Glowinski treated L.K. throughout his childhood and testified L.K. experienced severe symptoms of his disabilities that directly affected his academic performance. Similarly, Dr. Brunts treated L.K. during his adolescence and testified (1) L.K.’s ADHD contributed to his academic struggles and (2) L.K.’s ADHD was likely to continue to impair him into early adulthood. The court credited the opinions of Drs. Glowinski and Brunts and found Father's unsupported contrary claim L.K.’s learning disabilities only affect his social interactions and not his academic performance, not credible.
The court further noted Missouri courts liberally construe section 452.340.5 to be "consistent with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial