Word v. Peterson, WD58511
| Decision Date | 23 October 2001 |
| Docket Number | WD58511 |
| Citation | 57 S.W.3d 894 |
| Parties | Michelle J. Word, Respondent v. Eugene C. Peterson, Appellant Pro Se WD58511 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Christine T. Sill-Rogers
Counsel for Appellant: James A. Rynard
Counsel for Respondent: Nancy Stuver Wallingford
Opinion Summary:
Eugene C. Peterson appeals the court's judgment modifying the decree of dissolution between Peterson and Michelle J. Word by increasing his monthly child support obligation.
Division Three holds: (1) The court did not err in entering a judgment that varied from its pronouncement from the bench because it has the authority to revise its decision up until the time final judgment is entered and because its oral comments are not part of its judgment.
(2) The court did not abuse its discretion in considering a daughter's college expenses in calculating Peterson's presumed child support amount under Form 14 because the evidence sufficiently supported a determination that Peterson financially was able to contribute to her college expenses and the inclusion of those expenses is allowed in the instructions for Form 14.
(3) The court erroneously failed to include $491 of Word's monthly gross income in its Form 14 calculations where the uncontroverted evidence established that $91 of Word's monthly income from her primary employment and $400 per month paid to her for serving on the board of directors of a nursing home were not included as gross income in the Form 14 adopted by the court.
(4) The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding gifts from Word's parents and brother toward the couple's other daughter's private school expenses from Word's gross income where those expenses were also excluded from the computations.
(5) The record sufficiently supported the court's imputation of $2,500 per month in income to Peterson where Peterson testified that he was in good health and physically able to work; Peterson had listed his average monthly income as $2,500 per month on an income and expense statement he filled out within a year of trial; and the evidence reflected that Peterson had reduced his own hours and taken significant time off from work for personal reasons in recent years.
Appellant Eugene C. Peterson ("Father") appeals from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Jackson modifying the decree of dissolution between Father and Respondent Michelle J. Word ("Mother") by increasing Father's monthly child support obligation.
On January 21, 1987, the Circuit Court of Jackson County entered its decree dissolving the marriage between Father and Mother. Two children had been born of the marriage: Lauren Peterson, born October 2, 1980, and Kristen Peterson, born August 16, 1983. The court awarded the parties joint legal custody of their two daughters and placed physical custody of the children with Mother. The court ordered Father to pay a total of $200.00 per month in child support. On February 24, 1994, the court entered an order modifying the decree of dissolution by increasing Father's child support obligation to $425.00 per month.
On December 2, 1998, Father filed a pro se Motion to Modify Decree of Dissolution as to Child support. Father sought to decrease his child support obligation. On January 23, 1999, Mother filed her Answer and Counter Motion to Increase Child Support and For Attorney Fees.
The circuit court conducted a hearing on both motions on December 2, 1999. The court first heard Father's motion. When Father finished presenting his evidence, the court stated that it was going to deny his motion.
The court next heard Mother's motion. After Mother finished presenting her evidence, the court stated that it was denying the motion to increase child support. The court then said:
If I compare your Form 14's, even if I impute the gifts that the children receive, fortunately for the children that they receive, as income to the mother, your presumed support still doesn't drop to 20 percent below what it is now. You're able-bodied, you're capable of earning a living, you're voluntarily unemployed. There's not a reason why your child support should be decreased.
I think it's wonderful that Lauren wants to go to college. I hope she succeeds in college. I don't think that the Respondent, based on his current financial circumstances, is able to contribute to college expenses, nor do I expect that he would ever be willing to contribute to the college expenses.
I am entering an award of child support against Mr. Peterson in favor of or rather in attorney's fees against Mr. Peterson in favor of counsel for mother in the amount of $2,500.00, and in default of that judgment execution will lie. And you're both free to go.
On February 22, 2000, the circuit court entered its Judgment of Modification. In its judgment, the trial court found that Mother's costs in raising the minor children had increased substantially since 1994. The court noted that Lauren was attending college and that Kristen was a high school student in private school. The court adopted Mother's Form 14 calculations, found that the presumed child support amount reflected therein was not unjust or inappropriate, and increased Father's child support obligation to $757.00 per month. The court found that both parties were capable of paying their own attorneys' fees and costs and denied attorneys' fees to either party. Father brings three points on appeal from that judgment.
"We will sustain the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, or unless it erroneously declares or applies the law." Drury v. Racer, 17 S.W.3d 608, 610 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)). "'We afford the trial court deference with regard to its determinations of credibility and view the evidence in the light most favorable to its decision.'" Haden v. Riou, 37 S.W.3d 854, 860 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (quoting Morton v. Myers, 21 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000)). "When determining child support, the court's function is to protect the best interests of the child." Harrison v. Harrison, 28 S.W.3d 500, 501 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000).
In one of his points, Father argues that the circuit court erred in entering a written order that "was significantly at odds with its pronouncements from the bench." Father contends that the trial court should not be allowed to deviate from its statement that the court was "denying the motion to increase child support." Father contends that the trial court should not be allowed to rule one way from the bench and to later enter a judgment containing an opposite ruling.
A circuit court in a civil case has the authority to revise its decision until it enters its final judgment. Woodman Engineering Co. v. Licking Constr. & Dev. Corp., 786 S.W.2d 178, 181 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990). Rule 74.01(a) provides "[a] judgment is entered when a writing signed by the judge and denominated 'judgment' or 'decree' is filed." A trial court's oral comments are not part of the court's judgment and may not be used to oppose, dispute, or impeach the judgment or as a substitute for the judgment. St. Pierre v. Director of Revenue, 39 S.W.3d 576, 578-79 n.5 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001); See also Jantz v. Brewer, 30 S.W.3d 915, 919 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000) () (internal quotation omitted); Thornton v. Deaconess Med. Ctr. West Campus, 929 S.W.2d 872, 873 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (quoting Bonadonna v. Bonadonna, 322 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Mo. 1959)) ("'Oral comments may be considered for the purpose of explaining or supporting a record entry, but they cannot be used as a substitute for or to dispute it.'").
Accordingly, while it is lamentable that the circuit court made comments at the hearing that may have led Father to believe that Mother's motion was going to be denied, we cannot find error in the trial court's decision to render a judgment that may have differed from its statements at the hearing. Point denied.
In another of his points, Father claims that the circuit court abused its discretion by including Lauren's college expenses in calculating his child support obligation. Father contends that the weight of the evidence indicated that he was unable to contribute to those expenses. Father also argues that the evidence did not establish that the college expenses were substantial and continuing.
The circuit court has the discretion to consider anticipated college expenses in entertaining a motion to modify a decree of dissolution. Crawford v. Crawford, 986 S.W.2d 525, 531 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999). The circuit court is best situated to determine the needs of the child for help with college expenses and to assess the ability of the non-custodial parent to help pay those expenses, and absent a manifest abuse of discretion that determination will not be disturbed. Id.
In making his argument, Father relies almost entirely on the statements made by the trial court at the hearing that the court did not think that Father, "based on his current financial circumstances, is able to contribute to the college expenses." Father claims that based on that finding the trial court could not properly have included college expenses in calculating his child support obligation. As noted, supra, a trial court's oral comments are not part of the court's judgment and may not be used to oppose, dispute, or impeach the judgment or as a substitute for the judgment. St. Pierre, 39 S.W.3d at 578-79 n.5. Accordingly, the trial court's comments are not relevant to determining whether the trial court properly considered Lauren's college expenses in calculating the support amount.
"College expenses are properly considered as bearing on the amount of child support." Webb v. Fox, 978 S.W.2d 16, 21 (Mo....
To continue reading
Request your trial