Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Second Division
JERIANE M. JACO, Respondent,
BRIAN L. JACO, Appellant.
from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri The Honorable
Daniel R. Green, Judge.
Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick,
Judge and Alok Ahuja, Judge.
Cynthia L. Martin, Judge.
Jaco ("Father") appeals from a judgment denying his
motion to modify the child support provisions of a
dissolution decree. We affirm.
and Procedural Background
marriage between Father and Jeriane Jaco ("Mother")
was dissolved by a dissolution decree entered in December
2010 ("Dissolution Decree"). The Dissolution Decree
awarded Father and Mother joint physical and legal custody of
their minor child. The Dissolution Decree approved and
incorporated the terms of a separation agreement. The
incorporated separation agreement reflected Father and
Mother's agreement that the Form 14 presumed child
support amount was unjust and inappropriate, giving due
consideration to all relevant factors, and that neither party
should be obligated to pay child support to the other. The
incorporated separation agreement also reflected Father and
Mother's agreement to equally divide uncovered medical,
educational, extraordinary, and childcare expenses. The
Dissolution Decree thus awarded no child support to either
party, and ordered Mother and Father to bear equal
responsibility for the child's uncovered expenses.
Mother's gross monthly income at the time of the
Dissolution Decree was $3, 476.00, while Father's was $2,
filed a motion to modify the Dissolution Decree in December
2015 ("Motion"). Father's Motion sought to
modify both parenting time and the child support provisions
of the Dissolution Decree. Father's Motion alleged that
modification of the child support provisions was necessary
because of a substantial and continuing change of
circumstances that rendered the original support provisions
unreasonable. Specifically, Father's Motion alleged that
the "relative income of the parties ha[s] substantially
changed since [the Dissolution Decree] and that the cost of
raising [the child] has substantially increased since [the
Dissolution Decree]." After a bench trial, the trial
court issued its judgment and decree of modification
Judgment found "a continuing change of circumstances
sufficient to modify . . . the custody schedule"
previously ordered in the Dissolution Decree. The Judgment
ordered that the parties would continue to have joint legal
and physical custody of the child, but modified the parenting
plan's custody schedule. Neither Father nor Mother have
appealed the Judgment's modification of the custody
respect to Father's request to modify the child support
provisions in the Dissolution Decree, the Judgment found that
"both parties are capable of contributing to the support
of the minor child." At the time of the hearing on
Father's Motion, Mother's gross monthly income was
$5, 680.00, and Father's gross monthly income was $2,
417.00. In addition, Father had remarried, and his new spouse
("Stepmother") had a gross monthly income of $7,
083.34. Mother was engaged and living with her fiancé,
whose gross monthly income was $3, 400.00. Father's
Income and Expense Statement assumed that Stepmother
contributed to pay 50% of household expenses. Mother's
Income and Expense Statement assumed her fiancé
contributed to pay 40% of her household expenses.
trial court calculated a presumed child support amount
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 88.01, Form 14, and section
452.340. The presumed child support amount would have
required Mother to pay Father $401.00 per month. However, the
trial court found the presumed child support amount to have
been rebutted as unjust and inappropriate. The trial court
reasoned that in light of Stepmother's income, Father
"is not in need of child support." The trial court
also found that, in light of Stepmother's income, Father
is capable of contributing equally to uncovered medical
expenses, extracurricular expenses, and extraordinary
expenses. The trial court denied Father's request to
modify the Dissolution Decree's child support
filed a motion for new trial, for reconsideration, or to
amend the Judgment, which the trial court denied. This timely
this is a court tried case, "the judgment of the trial
court will be affirmed unless it is not supported by
substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the
evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the
law." Blue Ridge Bank & Trust Co. v. Trosen
(Trosen II), 309 S.W.3d 812, 815 (Mo. App. W.D.
2010) (quoting McNabb v. Barrett, 257 S.W.3d 166,
169 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)). "We view the evidence, and
permissible inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable
to the trial court's judgment, and we disregard all
contrary evidence and inferences." Id. (quoting
Brown v. Mickelson, 220 S.W.3d 442, 447 (Mo. App.
W.D. 2007)). "We defer to the trial court's factual
findings, giving due regard to the trial court's
opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses."
Id. (quoting Brown, 220 S.W.3d at 447)).
we are "primarily concerned with the correctness of the
trial court's result, " we will affirm the trial
court's judgment "if cognizable under any theory,
regardless of whether the reasons advanced by the trial court
are wrong or not sufficient." Id. (quoting
Blue Ridge Bank & Trust Co. v. ...