Le v. Le
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court to Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
No. ED108963
Filed December 14, 2021
Outcome: Affirmed
Le (hereinafter “Father”) and B. Le (hereinafter “Mother”) are the parents of one child who was born in 1999. The parties divorced in 2008. The child is currently a college student and is currently enrolled in St. Louis Community College. Child was previously enrolled in Missouri University of Science and Technology.
This case has a lengthy procedural history which is as follows:
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 Child’s medical care, extracurricular activities, and postsecondary 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, Child 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 Child. 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 Child 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 Child’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 that child was not enrolled in a minimum of 12 credit hours in college and was therefore not eligible for child support.
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 Child 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 Child 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.
Father raised 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.
Point I – Child’s Enrollment at Missouri S&T Complied with Section 452.340.5
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.
The parties dispute Child’s disability exemption under the relevant statute. Father argued the child’s disabilities do not constitute developmental disabilities. The court heard testimony from two of the child’s healthcare providers who stated that the severe symptoms of his disabilities affected his academic performance.
The trial court found Mother’s testimony and L.K.’s doctors’ testimony L.K.’s ADHD, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and dysgraphia constituted developmental disabilities credible and Father’s contrary testimony not credible. Nothing in the record suggests the trial court’s credibility determinations were incorrect or supports a “firm belief” the judgment was wrong. Stuart, 292 S.W.3d at 514.
Point I – Denied.
Point II – The Trial Court Correctly Found Father Owes $14,363.18 in Education Expenses
Father claims he should not have been held in contempt because (1) the dissolution judgment was unenforceable for vagueness and (2) Father’s nonpayment was not contumacious.
Nothing in the record suggests the dissolution judgment violates the vagueness principles established in Pratt and Echele. Missouri courts have held support judgments unenforceable when they impose costs on a parent without limitations of scope or expense.
Father’s support obligation was limited in cost and time by the in-state tuition and room and board rates of the University of Missouri for five years. Mother recorded every relevant expense L.K. incurred and shared proof of each expense with Father. Father never objected to the expenses. The trial court’s conclusion the dissolution judgment is enforceable was therefore not against the weight of the evidence.
Additionally, the record is clear Father intentionally disobeyed the dissolution judgment and obstructed this case’s resolution.
Point II denied.
Point III – Admission of L.K.’s Medical Records
Mother argues the trial court’s failure to formally admit the records was not prejudicial. She argues even if the records were not formally admitted, they were constructively admitted because they were marked as an exhibit, submitted to the court, and trial counsel used the records to examine witnesses. Harris v. Divine, 272 S.W.3d 478, 483 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008).
The Appellate Court held that “ . . . when the trial court has made no specific findings on a factual issue, such findings are interpreted as having been found in accordance with the trial court’s judgment.” Sulkin v. Sulkin, 619 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). Because the records were admitted, we presume the trial court believed Mother and disbelieved Father. We defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations. Stuart, 292 S.W.3d at 514.”
Point III Denied.
Point IV – The Trial Court Properly Awarded Fees to Mother
Father argues some of Mother’s fees were incurred litigating Father’s separate motion to modify the dissolution judgment. Father concludes the trial court’s award was therefore an abuse of discretion but cites no authority supporting his claim.
The Appellate Court held that: “Father earns over ten times Mother’s annual salary, Father’s position was meritless, and his repeated disobedience of court orders delayed resolution of this litigation, imposing additional financial burdens on Mother. We will not condone “conduct by a domestic relations litigant that unnecessarily increases the fees of the opposing party.” Morgan v. Morgan, 497 S.W.3d 359, 380 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).
Point IV Denied.
Outcome: Trial Court Judgment Affirmed.
