Shanks v. Shanks
Appeal from St. Charles County Court to Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District.
ED 109185 and 109186
Filed July 20, 2021
Reversed as to Contempt Judgment
- Shanks (hereinafter “Husband”) and M. Shanks (hereinafter “Wife”) were divorced pursuant to a judgment on February 24, 2015. The divorce judgment also included the child support that Husband was to pay Wife.
In 2016, Husband filed a modification of child support on the grounds that his income had declined. A modified judgment was entered on May 16, 2017. Husband also filed a Contempt Petition against Wife because alleging that she had failed to comply with the provisions of the divorce judgment. A lengthy procedural history followed. Husband’s Modification Petition (regarding child support) and Contempt Petitions were finally heard on June 4, 2019.
The trial court granted Husband’s Modification (based on 2017 facts) and Contempt Petitions. Wife then filed a Motion to Set Aside both of the judgments the trial court entered in favor of Husband. She argued that Husband’s income had increased significantly since 2017 and she also argued that both Petitions should be set aside based on Rule 74.06(b) – Excusable Neglect – Fraud, – Irregular, Void or Satisfied Judgments. Specifically, Wife invokes sub-parts Rule (2) and (5) of this rule. The trial court side aside both Judgments.
The Appellate Court noted that certain facts set forth in the Modification Judgment were not accurate at the time it was entered. The facts resulted in Husband paying a lower amount of child support award to Wife. The trial court set aside the Modification Judgment.
The Appellate Court rejected the argument that Wife’s Motion to set aside the Modification Judgment did not met the required elements under Rule 74.06(b). The Appellate Court also held that Rule 74.06. Local Rules require Husband to ensure the record was correct with regards to his financial information.
However, the Appellate Court held that the facts do not support setting aside the contempt petition. The Contempt Judgment was based on Respondent’s failure to pay her portion of the attorneys’ fees associated with the 2015 judgment of dissolution, as well as Respondent’s failure to respond to Appellant and his counsel to resolve some matters outside court and her prolonging this litigation. Therefore, the setting aside of the Contempt Judgment is reversed and that Judgment is reinstated in full force and effect.
Trial Court ruling setting aside Modification Judgment is Affirmed. The setting aside of the Contempt Judgment is reversed.
