Wasson v. Wasson (In re Wasson)
| Decision Date | 04 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | SD 37034 |
| Citation | 644 S.W.3d 338 |
| Parties | IN RE the MARRIAGE OF: Dana Lea WASSON and Jeremy Shane Wasson. Dana Lea Wasson, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Jeremy Shane Wasson, Respondent/Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appellant's Attorney: Christopher J. Swatosh, of Ava, Missouri.
Respondent's Attorney: Teresa R. Householder, of Marshfield, Missouri.
Dana Lea Wasson ("Mother"), appeals the trial court's "Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage" in four points relied on. She argues that the trial court "erred ... in erroneously declaring and applying the law and abusing its discretion"1 in: (1) denying Mother's motion to reopen the case for new evidence; (2) failing to make specific findings of abuse as required by section 452.375;2 (3) awarding Jeremy Shane Wasson ("Father") attorney fees in the amount of $50,000; and (4) allocating the entire actual damages award portion of a "deficiency judgment" debt on the marital home to Mother. Finding no merit to any of Mother's points, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, Walker v. Lonsinger , 461 S.W.3d 871, 874 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015), the following facts were adduced at trial.4
The parties were married on May 31, 2014, and had two children.5 Father worked as a self-employed contractor and is able to earn a gross monthly income of $5,000.
Mother lived with her parents her entire life except for when she lived with Father. After separating from Father, Mother moved back in with her parents. Mother graduated from a private Christian school in 2004 then attended some post-secondary training in "aesthetics." She has a license to work in skincare services, and previously worked at a spa during the marriage making $30 an hour. Mother quit working when the parties’ first child was born and was not "working outside the home" prior to the separation. After the separation, Mother worked three days a week at the Trinity Christian Academy6 daycare and made $1,080 per month. Child-1 attended daycare there on the days Mother worked.
In addition, Mother has received $10,000 to $15,000 a year (for approximately 18 years) from another business owned by her parents, along with health insurance benefits for her and the children. Mother receives these benefits "just for being their daughter," but also "because she does help with the business from time to time."
Mother's parents pay her bills, although she occasionally shops and purchases food for the children using her own money. Mother does not pay rent, utilities or insurance. She owns her car with her mother, and her parents insure it. Mother disclosed for the first time at trial (August 5, 2020), that she had over $107,000 in a savings account in her name and had been saving to buy a house.
The parties separated for a few days in 2015, after which Father was invited, by Mother's grandfather, to a Father's Day celebration at grandfather's home. Father attended and was assaulted by Mother's father. Father and Mother thereafter reconciled and attempted marriage counseling—Mother quit attending after three sessions.
On May 6, 2016, Mother left the marital residence with Child-1, and moved in with her parents. Father continued living in the marital residence for approximately a year and a half. Father paid the insurance and taxes, and maintained the property. After Mother left the marital home, Mother's parents began demanding that Father pay back the money they had advanced to purchase the home.
On May 17, 2016, Mother filed a "Petition for Dissolution of Marriage," wherein she stated that she was not pregnant. Shortly thereafter, Mother learned she was pregnant but did not tell Father. On July 6, 2016, Father filed a counter-petition, also asserting Mother was not pregnant. On or before July 19, 2016, Father learned from a third party that Mother was in fact pregnant and confronted Mother with the information. Mother confirmed that she was pregnant and amended her petition to reflect her physical status.
Mother delivered Child-2 eight months later at a birthing center. Mother did not list Father on Child 2's birth certificate, and gave Child-2 Mother's maiden name. Later, DNA testing was obtained and confirmed Father was Child-2's biological father. Child-2 was thereafter enrolled in the daycare at Trinity Christian Academy.
The trial court ordered supervised visits for Father with both children beginning April 21, 2017, although supervised visits had already commenced by agreement of the parties on November 5, 2016 between Father and Child-1. Father had to provide a parenting coach or assistant, at his own expense, to supervise the visitations. Father's supervised visitation was each Friday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and each Saturday from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Father did not have any contact with Child-2 until that child was a year old.
On April 25, 2017, Father and Mother underwent court-ordered psychological evaluations. In addition, Father was ordered—at either Mother's request or that of the guardian ad litem ("GAL")—to undergo a follow-up psychological evaluation, a neuropsychological examination, a brain MRI, and 4 drug and/or alcohol tests. Father complied and did everything he was asked or ordered to do.
On June 5, 2017, Mother filed a motion to terminate Father's supervised visitation until Father obtained parenting training and therapy. After hearing argument, the trial court denied Mother's motion. Father did complete parenting classes and training.
On January 3, 2018, the trial court ordered, in part, more supervised visitation for Father with the children and Father was ordered to provide a parenting coach or assistant at his expense. Father was ordered to pay $100 a month in child support and was ordered not to post any photos of the children on social media. The parties were also ordered to communicate only through a program called "talking parents" unless there was an emergency. Except for the fact that Father paid the expenses for supervised visits, and occasionally paid the required $100 child support payments, neither Mother nor Father complied with the remainder of the trial court's order.
On January 31, 2018, the trial court entered a "Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage." The judgment directed that although the marriage of the parties was dissolved, "issues related to child support and custody, distribution of assets and debts and maintenance, attorney fees and all other matters not adjudicated herein are taken under advisement and such issues are to be set for a one day trial at a later date."
In October 2015, Mother found and purchased a house through an online auction. Mother's parents provided the funds to complete the online purchase. The house was titled in the names of Father and Mother, and they owned the house "free and clear." No promissory note or deed of trust was executed in favor of Mother's parents to secure any interest in the home. No payments were made by Father or Mother to Mother's parents for the home, and Mother's parents made no demands for payment while Mother and Father both resided there.
On December 9, 2016, Mother's parents filed a four-count petition against the parties as to the marital home for fraud, unjust enrichment, action for imposition of constructive trust, and breach of contract.
On October 12, 2017, Mother's parents obtained a judgment against Mother and Father in their lawsuit regarding the marital home. The court found Mother and Father jointly liable to Mother's parents in the amount of $199,389.52, and imposed an equitable lien on the marital home in that amount. The court also awarded punitive damages to Mother's parents against Father only in the amount of $20,000. The judgment in that case shows there was no payment plan on the marital home—as the trial court indicated, the record in that case demonstrates that "Mother never signed a quit claim deed and stayed in the case only to support her parent's claim against Father." Mother's parents executed on the equitable lien and sold the marital home. The proceeds were applied to the $199,389.52 judgment, but a partial satisfaction of judgment was never filed.
Mother's parents have never tried to collect any of the judgment from Mother and have continued to support her and to pay her $10,000 to $15,000 a year since the judgment was entered. However, Mother's parents attempted on several occasions to collect the judgment from Father while the dissolution was pending.
Trial commenced on March 27, 2019—the trial court thereafter heard additional evidence on August 13 and 14, 2019, August 5, 2020, and September 30, 2020. A significant portion of Mother's evidence and witness testimony was directed at demonstrating that co-parenting the children with Father was impossible due to his alleged drinking and anger issues, and his refusal to cooperate with people in authority. Father's theory of the case was largely directed at demonstrating that Mother was controlled by her parents and would be unable to take care of the children on her own.
On August 16, 2019, after the third day of trial, (the fourth day of trial was not scheduled to resume until August 5, 2020), the trial court entered a temporary order granting the parties joint legal and joint physical custody. In addition to Father's prior court-ordered visitation, Father was to have the children every Wednesday night, and return them to the Trinity Christian Academy at 7:30 a.m. on Thursday for school because Child-1 began school early on Thursday mornings. The information premising this order, which was provided by Mother, was not true, and caused multiple problems for the children, the parties, and the court.
Father subsequently disregarded the trial court's order to return the children by 7:30 a.m., on the basis that Mother misrepresented the time the children started school on Thursday. At that...
To continue reading
Request your trial