 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ricklefs v. Ricklefs3/20/2001
time of trial, April of 1999. It is unclear from the record whether he continued these payments for the period after trial until the judgment of dissolution was entered.
The case was heard on March 2, 1999, and April 22, 1999, after which the trial court took it under advisement. On December 29, 1999, the court entered its judgment dissolving the marriage. In its judgment, the court also awarded the parties joint physical and legal custody of the minor children, with child support to the respondent of $977 per month, commencing January 1, 2000. The trial court also ordered the appellant to pay retroactive child support in the amount of $7,190, after giving credit for the child support paid by the appellant during the pendency of the dissolution. The trial court further ordered the appellant to pay 60% of the minor children's post-secondary educational expenses and divided the parties' property and debts.
The respondent filed a motion to amend judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial. On February 2, 2000, the court entered its amended judgment. The amendment concerned a clarification of the trial court's order with respect to payment by the appellant of child support for post-secondary educational expenses.
This appeal follows.
I.
In Point I, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in awarding child support for three children of $977 per month, beginning January 1, 2000, because in making its award it incorrectly calculated the required PCSA pursuant to Form 14. Specifically, the appellant claims that, although the court indicated on its Form 14 Worksheet that the Line 11 Overnight Visitation Adjustment (OVA) multiplier was 10%, the court's PCSA calculation reflects that it actually applied a multiplier of 6%. It appears that what the appellant is arguing is that, because the trial court indicated on its Form 14 that the OVA multiplier was 10%, it intended and was required to apply that multiplier in determining its Form 14 PCSA, and its failure to do so was error. For her part, the respondent contends that, from the record, it is clear that the trial court actually found the OVA multiplier to be 6% and used that figure in its Form 14 PCSA calculation, and that the entry of the 10% multiplier on the court's Form 14 was simply a "clerical error" which we can and should ignore. The issue then that is raised in this point is which OVA multiplier the trial court intended to use in its Form 14 calculation of the PCSA on which it ultimately based its award of child support.
We will affirm the trial court's award of child support unless no substantial evidence exists to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Nelson v. Nelson, 25 S.W.3d 511, 520 (Mo. App. 2000) (citation omitted). "The trial court's award of child support will not be disturbed on appeal 'unless the evidence is "palpably insufficient" to support it.'" Id. (citations omitted). Assuming an award of child support is found to be supported by the evidence, " n appellate court will interfere with the trial court's award [only] if the trial court abused its discretion by ordering an amount that is 'against the logic of the circumstances' or 'arbitrary or unreasonable.'" Id. (quoting Gerhard v. Gerhard, 985 S.W.2d 927, 930 (Mo. App. 1999)).
In determining an award of child support in any proceeding, the trial court is required by section 452.340.8 and Rule 88.01 to follow the two-step procedure set forth in Woolridge v. Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d 372, 379 (Mo. App. 1996), which was approved by the Missouri Supreme Court in Neal v. Neal, 941 S.W.2d 501, 504 (Mo. banc 1997). Nelson, 25 S.W.3d at 520. First
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|