Matthew W. Hagen v. Jamie L. Harris

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 21, 2023
• Docket: ED110935
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION ONE

MATTHEW W. HAGEN, ) No. ED110935 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Joseph L. Green JAMIE L. HARRIS, ) ) Appellant. ) Filed: November 21, 2023

Introduction

Jamie Harris (“Mother”) appeals the circuit court’s finding of paternity and judgment for

custody and child support of a child (“Child”) she shares with Matthew Hagen (“Father”). Mother

raises two points on appeal. In Point I, Mother alleges the circuit court erred in its Form 14 child

support calculation of the presumed correct support amount (“PCSA”). In Point II, Mother alleges

the circuit court erred in overruling her motion to reopen the case to consider additional evidence

of charges related to Father driving while intoxicated (“DWI” and “alcohol-related charges”) given

his alleged alcohol use was a contested issue in the case.

Because the circuit court erred in calculating the PCSA, we grant Point I. Because the

circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s request to reopen the evidence and

consider new evidence of Father’s alcohol-related charges, we deny Point II. The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded

for the circuit court to recalculate Line 11 in the PCSA to match the circuit court’s amended

exchange schedules.

Factual and Procedural Background

Mother and Father (collectively, “Parents”) share a two-year-old child (“Child”). Father is

listed as Child’s father on her birth certificate and is her biological father according to both parties.

On January 19, 2020, Parents were engaged in a domestic dispute at Father’s house, and the police

were called. On January 21, 2020, St. Charles County Circuit Court issued an adult ex parte order

of protection against Mother and an ex parte child order of protection against Mother upon Father’s

request. On the same day, St. Louis County Circuit Court issued an adult ex parte order of

protection against Father upon Mother’s request. A day later, Mother obtained an ex parte child

order of protection against Father. Father filed a petition for child custody and support on January

29, 2020. A guardian ad litem (“GAL”) was appointed for Child.

Relevant to the points on appeal, Parents submitted proposed parenting plans and Form

14s. Mother’s proposed Form 14 provided a Line 11 adjustment of 23% for 131–136 overnights

with Father. Father’s proposed Form 14 provided a Line 11 adjustment of 34% for 181–183

overnights. Mother’s proposed Weekday and Weekend Exchange Schedule (“exchange schedule”)

provided Father with every Wednesday overnight and every other weekend beginning at 4:00 p.m.

on Friday and ending at 4:00 p.m. on Monday. Father’s exchange schedule proposed Father receive

Child from 6:00 p.m. Friday through 6:00 p.m. Wednesday every other week and 6:00 p.m.

Monday through 6:00 p.m. Wednesday every other week for a 50-50 split. The GAL also submitted

a proposed parenting plan. The GAL’s exchange schedule proposed Mother receive custody

2 beginning on Sunday in the first week, with Father receiving Wednesday overnight in the first

week and every other weekend.

The circuit court held a trial on September 2, 2021. Father, Mother, Mother’s boyfriend,

and the GAL testified. Relevant to these points on appeal, Father testified he drinks alcohol two to

three times a month and smokes a pack of cigarettes a day. Father denied drinking while exercising

custody. Father testified he underwent alcohol monitoring and testing. Father testified there were

no positive results from either program. Regarding the protection orders, Father testified Mother

alleged he was drunk, he shoved her, and beat her while she was holding Child. Father denied

these events happened. Father alleged Mother accused him of talking to other women, and as a

result, he refused to let Mother take Child with her and she left without her. Father alleged Mother

pushed and scratched him, but he did not contact the police at that time; instead he obtained the

order of protection the next day.

Mother testified she believed Father to be a violent person, due to his anger outbursts,

which usually occurred after his binge drinking. Mother testified Father’s behavior worsened after

Child was born. Mother testified Father drank every weekend, consuming a six- or thirty-pack of

beer or “whatever else” was in the home. Mother testified Father would come home from work

during the week, consume a six- or twelve-pack of beer, and then go to sleep. Mother

acknowledged Father’s court-ordered drug and alcohol tests were negative, although she believed

there was a missing test result.

Regarding the protection orders, Mother testified Father drank a large bottle of alcohol

while caring for Child, which upset Mother, causing an argument. Mother testified Father began

to get physical, punched her multiple times, and pushed her to the ground while she was holding

Child. Mother testified Father took Child from her, took Child into the bedroom, and locked the

3 door. Mother testified she left to not escalate the situation. Mother testified Father subsequently

left, driving off through the front yard, and not telling her where he was taking Child. Mother

testified she was pregnant at the time of this incident, but later miscarried. Mother testified she

believed the miscarriage was caused by Father shoving her down.

On April 22, 2022, the circuit court, on its own motion, dismissed all orders of protection

pending between Parents. On May 6, 2022, the circuit court entered its judgment awarding Father

and Mother joint legal and physical custody of Child. The circuit court’s judgment further ordered:

Mother and Father to perform their duties as parents according to the parenting plan; Father to pay

Mother $221.00 per month in child support; and Mother to prepare income withholding. The

judgment awarded the GAL $7,880.00 in fees and awarded Mother to pay $5,000.00 toward

Father’s attorney’s fees. The circuit court accepted Father’s Form 14 calculations and did not rebut

the PCSA as being unjust or inappropriate. The circuit court rejected Parents’ exchange schedules

and instead accepted the GAL’s schedule “with a couple of exceptions.” As to Father’s alleged

alcoholism and drug abuse, the circuit court determined:

Mother not only alleged that Father was an alcoholic but also alleged that Father’s entire family were alcoholics. Mother alleged that Father was intoxicated in the incident referenced above on January 19, 2020. The responding police officer’s narrative in the police report stated “[Father] did not display any signs that he was impaired and I did not detect any signs of impairment.”

The documented evidence via Soberlink and drug tests, supports a finding that the current existing conditions are one in which Father does not suffer from alcohol/substance abuse.

More importantly, there is absolutely no credible evidence presented that Father currently abuses alcohol or illicit drugs that would impair his ability to parent or impaired his ability to care for [Child].”

4 The circuit court further found, “Father does not suffer from any current substance abuse or

addiction problems that would impair his ability to parent [Child] or inhibit his ability to care for

[Child].”

On June 2, 2022, Mother moved to reopen the evidence because on or about January 9,

2022, Father was arrested for alcohol-related charges.1 Mother also moved to amend the judgment

asking the circuit court to correct alleged factual errors. The circuit court heard Mother’s motion

and then denied her motion to reopen the evidence and her motion to amend the judgment except

for correcting Child’s date of birth in the judgment (the “Amended Judgment”).

This appeal follows.

Discussion

Point I: Form 14 Miscalculation

Party Positions

In Point I, Mother alleges the circuit court erred in its child support award in calculating

the Form 14 PCSA.2 Mother argues the circuit court’s error is on Line 11, the custody credit.

Mother further argues the circuit court erred when it “implicitly” determined it would not rebut

the PCSA as unjust or inappropriate. Mother requests this Court to reverse the award of child

support and remand the case for a new calculation.

Standard of Review

This Court will affirm the circuit court’s judgment “unless it is not supported by substantial

evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.”

Schumert v. Dreyer, 481 S.W.3d 885, 888 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing Kamler v. Kamler, 213

S.W.3d 185, 187 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007)); Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

1 Father did not plead guilty to the DWI until February 8, 2023. 2 Father filed no Respondent’s brief with this Court.

5 Analysis

In determining child support, the circuit court must follow the two-step procedure in

Woolridge v. Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d 372, 379 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996). “In determining the [PCSA]

under the first step, the trial court can either accept one of the parties’ Form 14 calculations or

reject both parties’ calculations and prepare its own Form 14 calculation.” Roberts v. Roberts, 391

S.W.3d 921, 922 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (citing Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d at 381). In step two, the

circuit court must “consider whether to rebut the [PCSA], as found by the court, as being unjust or

inappropriate after consideration of all relevant factors.” Id. at 922–23 (quoting Woolridge, 915

S.W.2d at 379).

Mother alleges the circuit court erred in its Line 11 credit determinations. Line 11 allows

for adjustment for a portion of amounts expended by the parent obligated to pay child support

during periods of overnight visitation or custody. In its directions for Line 11, “The Directions,

Comments for Use, and Examples for Completion of Form No. 14,” provide a table with

corresponding percentages for the Line 11 credit.

Mother points out that under the circuit court’s judgment, Father is awarded custody for

January through May and September through December of each year. Mother argues “January

through May is 151 days, and September through December is 122 days, totaling 273 days which

is exactly 39 weeks.” Mother states the custody schedule gives Father five overnights every two

weeks, “so 39 weeks results in (39/2) *5 = 97.5 overnights, rounded to 98 overnights.” Mother

notes the circuit court’s judgment flips the schedule for June, July, and August of each year.

Mother states June, July, and August “is 92 days, which is exactly 13 weeks plus an extra day.”

But, Mother argues “the custody schedule gives each parent three uninterrupted weeks in the

summer, so of that six-week period, Father receives 21 overnights and Mother receives 21

6 overnights.” Mother determines the remaining period of summer, for which the flipped schedule

applies, “comprise thirteen weeks minus six weeks, which is seven weeks.” Mother contends the

custody schedule gives Father “9 overnights every two weeks, so seven weeks results in (7/2) *9

= 31.5 overnights, rounded to 32 overnights.” Thus, Mother argues “the custody schedule grants

Father a total of 98 + 21 + 32 overnights = 151 overnights total.” As to holidays, Mother states

they “can be ignored because the parties evenly split the holidays, so the overall custody division

remains essentially the same.” With this total calculation, Mother concludes, applying the table in

the Line 11 Directions and Comments, “151 overnights means that Father should receive a Line

11 custody credit of 28%” instead of the circuit court’s award of 34% custody credit. Mother

alleges “a 28% rather than a 34% Line 11 credit results in a Line 11 value of $279 ($996 from Line

5 times 0.28), which therefore increases the Form 14 amount from $211 to $271.”

Based on the circuit court’s exchange schedules attached to its judgment, it is unclear how

the circuit court reached the number of overnights corresponding to 34% without error. 3 In its

findings of fact and conclusions of law, the circuit court stated it “accepted Father’s Form 14

calculations,” instead of creating its own. But, as to visitation, the circuit court rejected both

Parents’ exchange schedules and instead accepted the GAL’s schedule “with a couple of

exceptions.” In Father’s original exchange schedule, Father proposed he “receive the child from 6

PM Friday through 6 PM Wednesday every other week and [sic] 6 PM Monday through 6 PM

Wednesday and every other week for a 50-50 split.” With approximately 365 days in a year, Father

would receive approximately 182.5 overnights, falling into the 34% category on the table, as

written in Father’s proposed Form 14. Thus, it seems the circuit court accepted Father’s Form 14,

3 Mother incorrectly states “the custody schedule gives each parent three uninterrupted weeks in the summer . . . .” The circuit court’s residential schedule instead gives each parent three weeks “each year during which they will have exclusive physical custody of the children and the regular or alternative exchange weekday and weekend schedules do not apply.” There is no indication the designated vacation weeks must occur in the summer.

7 but did not update or recalculate Line 11 to match its amended exchange schedules. Thus, the

circuit court erred in accepting Father’s Form 14 as the correct PCSA without amending Line 11.4

See Schumert, 481 S.W.3d at 890.

Point I is granted.

Point II: Denial of Motion to Reopen Case

In Point II, Mother argues the circuit court erred in overruling her motion to reopen the

case to consider new evidence of Father’s alcohol-related charges given his alleged alcohol use

was a contested issue in the case. Mother argues she met the six-pronged test required to reopen

this case based on the newly-discovered evidence. Thus, Mother argues the circuit court “abused

its discretion in not reopening the case to address Father’s” new alcohol- related charges. Mother

asks this Court to reverse the judgment and remand the case to consider the new evidence on

Father’s alleged alcohol abuse.

“A circuit court has wide discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion to reopen a case

for the admission of additional evidence,” and this Court “will not interfere with that decision

unless we find an abuse of discretion.” Baker Team Props., LLC. v. Wenta, 611 S.W.3d 348, 354

(Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (quoting Union Elec. Co. v. A.P. Read Homes, LLC, 485 S.W.3d 773, 778

(Mo. App. W.D. 2016)); Rule 78.01. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision

is so against the logic of the circumstances then before it, or so unreasonable and arbitrary, that it

4 Under Rule 84.14, this Court could correct the mathematical error in the Form 14 calculation without a remand. See Elliott v. Elliott, 920 S.W.2d 570, 579 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996). We decline to do so here because further “proceedings in the circuit court” are needed, as stated in the Directions, Comments for Use, and Examples for Completion of Form No. 14, to clarify the number of overnights each parent is “awarded to and exercised by” Father, “the parent obligated to pay support under” the circuit court’s judgment. Schumert, 481 S.W.3d at 890 n.9 (quoting DeBaliviere Place Ass’n v. Veal, 337 S.W.3d 670, 679 (Mo. banc 2011)).

8 shocks one’s sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful consideration.” State v. Whittier, 591

S.W.3d 19, 23 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (citing State v. Shegog, 521 S.W.3d 628, 633 (Mo. App.

W.D. 2017)).

Analysis

Rule 78.01 provides “[t]he court may grant a new trial of any issue upon good cause

shown.”5 “On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the

judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact or make new

findings, and direct the entry of a new judgment.” Id.; see also Baker Team Props., LLC, 611

S.W.3d at 354. The party seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must show:

(1) that the evidence has come to [her] knowledge since the trial; (2) that the failure of the evidence to come to [her] knowledge sooner was not the result of a lack of due diligence; (3) that the evidence is so material that it would probably produce a different result if a new trial were granted; (4) that the evidence is not cumulative only; (5) that the parties’ affidavit should be produced, or its absence be accounted for; and (6) that the object of the evidence is not merely to impeach the character or credibility of a witness.

Pijanowski v. Pijanowski, 272 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (quoting Anderson v.

Anderson, 854 S.W.2d 32, 37–38 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993)). But, “new trial motions on the ground

of newly discovered evidence ‘are viewed with disfavor and courts grant them as an exception and

refuse them as a rule.’” Id. 324–25 (quoting Williams v. McCoy, 854 S.W.2d 545, 554 (Mo. App.

S.D. 1993)).

This Court finds no exception here. The circuit court called and heard Mother’s motion and

made the implicit determination the new evidence of Father’s alcohol-related charges did not

change its judgment as to Father “suffer[ing] from any current substance abuse or addiction

problems that would impair his ability to parent [Child] or inhibit his ability to care for [Child].”

5 All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2020), unless otherwise indicated.

9 Because Father’s alcohol-related charges had not been adjudicated at the time of Mother’s motion

to reopen, this Court declines to hold the circuit court abused its discretion in finding the evidence

was not “so material that it would probably produce a different result if a new trial were granted .

. . .” Pijanowski, 272 S.W.3d at 324. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Mother’s motion.

Point II denied.

Conclusion

The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded

for the circuit court to recalculate Line 11 in the PCSA to match the circuit court’s amended

_______________________________ Philip M. Hess, Judge

Robert M. Clayton III, P.J. and Cristian M. Stevens, J. concur.