Brundige v. Marcum

694 S.W.2d 891, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 3413
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 16, 1985
DocketNo. WD 36366
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 694 S.W.2d 891 (Brundige v. Marcum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brundige v. Marcum, 694 S.W.2d 891, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 3413 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The father sought to have his obligation to pay child support terminated by modification of the dissolution decree. The mother responded with a motion for contempt against the father based on his failure to pay child support and the trial court issued an order to show cause to the father. The motion to modify and the order to show cause were consolidated and tried to the court. The trial court overruled both motions and quashed the order to show cause. The father appeals alleging that the mother lacked standing to prosecute the motion for contempt and that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to modify and in finding him to be in arrears on his child support payments.

Appeal from order overruling wife’s motion for contempt and granting order to show cause is dismissed. Order overruling motion to modify affirmed.

The parties’ marriage was dissolved on June 20, 1974. The decree awarded the wife custody of the two minor children (a daughter born February 22, 1964, and a son born February 8, 1966), and $255.00 per month for support of the two children. The property settlement agreement, incorporated into the decree, provided that for income tax purposes the wife had the right to claim the daughter as an exemption and the father had the right to claim the son as an exemption.

The father paid the $255.00 monthly child support as ordered until March, 1981, and the mother retained custody of both children until sometime in late 1980. At that time, the son went to live with the father. Shortly thereafter, the father had a stipulation drawn up by his attorney and signed by the mother. The stipulation, purporting to modify the custody arrangement and to terminate the father’s obligation to pay child support, read in relevant part as follows:

Come now the petitioners in the above entitled cause, Mary Martha Marcum and Lee Jay Marcum, and hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. That, subject to the approval of the Court, the custody of [the son] be granted to Lee Jay Marcum, petitioner herein, and that further, subject to the approval of the Court, the child support obligations of Lee Jay Marcum, petitioner herein, to Mary Martha Marcum, petitioner herein, be and it is hereby terminated.
2. That hereafter each party be solely responsible for the care, custody and control and support of the respective child in his or her respective custody.

The stipulation was never presented to the court for approval and the father does not recall ever signing it; however, he testified that he subsequently acted in accordance with the document. The father also testified that as a condition to the agreed stipulation, he was to buy the daughter a car. The mother denies that the parties reached an agreement to modify the decreed child support and she testified that she signed the stipulation under the duress of being denied visitation with the son.

In any event, the father did purchase the daughter a car in August, 1981, and it remained in her possession approximately one year. Throughout this period, with the [894]*894exception of the first four months in 1982, the father made monthly payments on the car. The daughter, with help from the mother, made the four $180.00 payments which the father was unable to make due to his being laid off from work. The car was returned to the father when it became known that he intended for the car to serve in lieu of child support and that it was titled in his name.

From March, 1981, to July 9, 1984, the time period covered by this action, the father made a total of six $127.50 payments to the mother. Two of these payments, one designated as child support for the daughter and one for the son, were made in each of three months: November, 1982, December, 1982, and February, 1983. The February payments were intended to be for January, 1983. These six payments were apparently made because the son was residing with the mother at that time.

As stated above, the son went to live with the father in late 1980. From that time until May, 1983, the son changed residences fairly often. He lived sometimes with the mother, sometimes with the father, and sometimes in the custody of the juvenile authorities. In addition, he was hospitalized for an extended period of time in the summer of 1982. On May 28, 1983, the son was married and established his own household.

The daughter, also, on two occasions, left the home provided by the mother. The daughter graduated from high school in June, 1982, and shortly thereafter and with the mother’s approval, she moved to an apartment with a roommate. That September she started college, taking four classes for five hours’ credit, and in October she returned to the mother’s house for financial reasons. She testified that she was able to meet her half of the apartment expenses for July through September and for October with help. Her mother was paying for her tuition and books, and her father was providing her with a car at the time. The daughter returned to the apartment for a period of one to three weeks in January, 1984, after having an argument with the mother.

The daughter completed her first semester of college and then elected not to continue her education. Throughout the period considered, the daughter worked continuously at a variety of jobs. Her work history as of the date of trial was as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Siegfried v. Larue
891 S.W.2d 556 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
Mora v. Mora
861 S.W.2d 226 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1993)
Bollinger v. Bollinger
778 S.W.2d 15 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
In re the Marriage of Hughes
773 S.W.2d 897 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
MJR Corp. v. B & B VENDING CO.
760 S.W.2d 4 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
694 S.W.2d 891, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 3413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brundige-v-marcum-moctapp-1985.