Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY Honorable Jerry A.
Harmison, Jr., Judge
Scott, P.J., Bates, C.J., and Burrell, J.
and Bill Bryan divorced in 2004. Their separation agreement,
made part of the decree, established responsibilities for
their children's health-insurance costs and required each
parent to pay 50% of college costs through graduate or
professional school, less "other aid that reduces
2017, Kristy moved the court to determine Bill's
arrearages. After months of proceedings and a
contested hearing, the court entered a judgment that Bill pay
Kristy $44, 777 for Bill's share of daughter Sara's
vet-school expenses; reimburse Kristy $2, 345 for daughter
Lexi's educational expenses; and reimburse Kristy $17,
822 for the children's health-insurance
appeals, challenging these awards. We affirm.
charges that Kristy had no standing to sue for education
expenses after a child reached age 21 "in that she had
no legal obligation to provide such support, and thus her
payments for those expenses were voluntary." Yet the
stated premise fails - Bill later concedes that he and Kristy
were legally bound to provide educational support
beyond age 21, having contracted to do so in their separation
agreement, which the court also incorporated into its decree.
This distinguishes Bill's citation to Meyer v.
Meyer, 77 S.W.3d 40 (Mo. App. 2002), where the parents
had no such legal obligation. Id. at 42. In any
event, absent supporting authority, Bill does not persuade us
that Kristy has no legal standing regarding a bilateral
agreement to which she was a contracting party, a principal,
and judicially bound as a litigant. We deny Point 1 and,
without addressing them further, those subparts of Points 2
and 3 incorporating Point 1 by reference.
for Health Insurance & Lexi's Education (Points 3
these points out of order and begin with Point 4, which in
lay terms asserts that the court awarded the wrong figure for
background, Exhibits 2, 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, and 2-D, totaling
hundreds of pages, were admitted without objection in support
of Kristy's original claims, including $17, 822 for
health-insurance costs. Kristy also testified and answered
the court's questions about those claims and exhibits. In
later testimony, Kristy "corrected" her
health-insurance claim down to $15, 614.
court took the case under advisement for eight months, during
which the parties filed briefs and had a conference call with
the court. The court then sent counsel an "opinion
letter" outlining its intended awards, which included
Kristy's first figure of $17, 822 for health-insurance
costs, and asked the parties to contact the court if they
believed any amount had been overlooked.
wrote back and took issue with three rulings, but not the
$17, 822 for health insurance. After formal judgment, Bill
moved to eliminate (not reduce) the $17, 822 health-insurance
award for wholly-different reasons than Point 4 now asserts.
Having thus missed two opportunities to put current Point 4
before the trial court, Bill has not preserved it for appeal.
is similar and fails in part for similar reasons. Kristy
initially sought $2, 345 reimbursement for Lexi's
educational expenses; that evidentiary support was admitted
without objection; Kristy later "corrected" her
claim down to $1, 674; the court's opinion letter
proposed to award Kristy's first number; Bill replied to
that letter and later moved to eliminate (not reduce) this
$2, 345 award without ever mentioning Kristy's