McLaughlin v. McLaughlin
ED 1090164
Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
Opinion Filed December 21, 2021
Outcome: Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
The parties are the parents of two children and divorced in September of 2015. Pursuant to the divorce judgment, Husband was supposed to pay Wife $2,000/month in child support. Each party was also obligated to pay half of the minor children’s private school tuition and expenses that were agreed upon in advance.
Husband filed a Motion to Modify Child Support on August 1, 2018. Husband filed this motion since he experienced a decrease in income while Wife simultaneously experienced an increase in her income. Additionally, Husband’s overnight visits with the children increased.
The trial court denied Husband’s Motion to Modify Child Support. The trial court noted that although Husband’s income decreased from approximately from $18k/month to $16k/month, this constituted an uncharacteristic decrease in income. The trial court also noted that while this Motion to Modify was pending, Husband belonged to two country clubs, had leased a Mercedes for nearly $1,000/month and spent $2,200/month on vacations and recreation. Husband also no longer was paying private school tuition for the minor children and his maintenance obligation to Wife ended in September 2019.
Husband appealed on the following point: the trial court erred in not finding a substantial change in circumstances.
The Appellate Court opinion noted that: “Modification of child support is governed by Section 452.370, RSMo, which establishes a prima facie showing of a substantial and continuing change in circumstances when there is a change of 20 percent or more when the existing amount was based on the presumed amount pursuant to the child support guidelines.” Even though Husband had experienced a decrease in income, Wife had experienced an increase in income and Husband had additional overnights with the children these changes did not rise to a substantial change in circumstances. The Appellate Court also emphasized the fact that Husband was no longer paying private school tuition nor maintenance and he did not demonstrate an inability to support himself.
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed.
