Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Fourth Division
SCOTT E. COURTNEY, Petitioner/Appellant/Cross Respondent,
TERRESA K. COURTNEY, Respondent/Cross Appellant.
from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County Hon. Mary
Van Amburg, Judge
E. Courtney (Father) appeals from the trial court's Order
and Judgment entered July 21, 2016. Terresa K. Courtney
(Mother) cross-appeals from the same judgment. Both Father
and Mother challenge as internally inconsistent the parts of
the judgment addressing child custody and property division.
Additionally, Father challenges the trial court's denial
of his motion to modify maintenance and its award of attorney
fees to Mother. Mother argues that the trial court erred by
not addressing in its judgment her evidence regarding
extraordinary expenses from the extracurricular activities of
the couple's two daughters (Daughters). We reverse and
parties' divorce decree became final February 16, 2010.
They have since engaged in near-continuous litigation,
including a previous appeal to this court in 2015. The
factual and procedural history of the litigation from the
final divorce decree through the 2015 appeal was thoroughly
recited in Courtney v. Courtney, 458 S.W.3d 462 (Mo.
App. E.D. 2015), and we need not restate it here.
appeal, this court remanded to the trial court the issues of
custody and maintenance modification. Thereafter, Mother
filed an amended motion to modify child custody and support,
claiming that the original custody order was unworkable due
to her relocation to Michigan. She also filed a "motion
to determine amounts due." Father filed his own amended
motion to modify child custody, visitation, maintenance, and
child support. In this motion, Father requested that
maintenance be terminated, that his visitation be modified to
include more frequent and meaningful contact, and that child
support be modified to include travel expenses he incurs when
exercising custody. Father also claimed that Mother had not
complied with the original dissolution order to give Father
his share of certain marital assets.
hearing on the parties' motions took place in January
2016. Each party subsequently submitted proposed orders and
proposed parenting plans. The guardian ad litem also
submitted two proposed parenting plans. Additional facts
relating to evidence presented at trial are recited below as
relevant to the points on appeal.
trial court issued its Order and Judgment July 21, 2016. The
judgment contained significant inconsistencies, which we
discuss below. Mother and Father each filed a motion for a
new trial on August 12 and 17, respectively. The trial court
did not rule on either motion within ninety days of each
filing. Hence, Rule 81.05(a)(2)(A) applies, and we consider
the post-trial motions denied. This appeal follows.
court-tried case, we will uphold the trial court's
judgment as long as it is supported by substantial evidence,
is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not
erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v.
Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We defer to
the trial court's determinations of credibility and view
all facts and any inferences drawn therefrom in the light
most favorable to the judgment. Vinson v. Adams, 192
S.W.3d 492, 494 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006).
I and Cross-Points III-VII: The trial court's judgment
contains findings of fact that are inconsistent with its
orders regarding property division.
in his Point I, and Mother, in her Cross-Points III-VII,
claim that the trial court's judgment is internally
inconsistent with respect to the division of certain
properties. Specifically, the parties identify the following:
1. JP Morgan restricted stock: In
¶32, the trial court finds that "Father
was ordered to divide his JP Morgan restricted stock, "
but the parties disagree as to whether Father actually did
so. The court also found that Mother did not present evidence
of what amount she was owed for her 50% share of the stock.
In ¶36-39, the court lists and values certain properties
it is allocating to each party. The court does not include
the JP Morgan restricted stock in those lists.
• However, in ¶139, the court orders Father to pay
Mother $16, 298.36 for her "50% value of JPMorgan - LTIP
shares of restricted stock."
2. Chase pension plan: In ¶29(b), the trial
court finds that the original dissolution decree provided
that the full value of Father's Chase pension plan was
$5, 850, to be divided equally (i.e., $2, 925 each).
The trial court also finds that the parties stipulated to
• However, the record reflects no such stipulation.
• Furthermore, in ¶143, the trial court orders
Father to pay Mother a different value, $7, 591.51, for her
50% share of his Chase pension plan.
3. Citigroup 401(k): In ¶38, the trial court
finds that the value of Father's Citigroup 401k was $0 at
the time of the original dissolution and states that it
cannot now assign a value to that property.
• However, in ¶142, the court orders Father to pay
Mother $18, 151.81 for 50% of the Citigroup 401(k).
4. Merrill Lynch Nexstar rollover: In ¶29(d),
the trial court finds that the original decree provided that
the full value of Mother's Merrill Lynch Nexstar rollover
account was $26, 527. The trial court also finds that the
parties stipulated to this value. Accordingly, the court
finds in ¶36 that Father is entitled to $13, 263.50 from
• However, the record reflects no such stipulation.
• Furthermore, in ¶149, the trial court finds that
Mother owes Father a different amount, $6, 700, for the
Merrill Lynch Nexstar rollover account.
5. Merrill Lynch Source One rollover: In ¶37, the
trial court finds that Father is entitled to $8, 824 for his
50% share of the Merrill Lynch Source One rollover account.
The court notes that Mother requested that this account be
considered her separate property but writes "this court
is not vested with the authority to reclassify property
and/or modify the property orders in the [original
• However, in ¶148, the court orders that Mother
owes Father nothing ($0) for the Merrill Lynch ...