Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
[SEAL]
In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Western District
MICHAEL McKINZY, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) WD81013
CARLETHA GASTON )
(McKINZY), )
)
Respondent. ) FILED: June 26, 2018
[SEAL]
In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Western District
MICHAEL McKINZY, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) WD81013
CARLETHA GASTON )
(McKINZY), )
)
Respondent. ) FILED: June 26, 2018
ANALYSIS
In his sole point on appeal, Father contends the
court erred in denying his summary judgment motion,
in which he requested that the court set aside the July
2002 administrative order as void. Father argues that
he was not properly served with process in the admin-
istrative proceeding.
App. 8
2
In particular, the court found that Father failed to:
[S]ummarily state the legal basis for the motion; attach
a statement of uncontroverted material facts stating
with particularity in separately numbered paragraphs
each material fact as to which movant claims there is
no genuine issue; specifically reference the pleadings,
discovery, exhibits, or affidavits that demonstrate the
lack of a genuine issue as to such facts; provide
[Mother] with an electronic copy of the statement of
uncontroverted material facts in a commonly used me-
dium, such as a diskette, CD-ROM or e-mail attach-
ment, in a format that can be read by most commonly
used word processing programs, such as Word for Win-
dows or WordPerfect 5.x or higher; and, to file a sepa-
rate legal memorandum explaining why summary
judgment should be granted.
App. 9
CONCLUSION
The judgment is affirmed.
3
Father’s signature on the consent order also conclusively
refutes his claim, which he raises only in his argument and not in
his point relied on in violation of Rule 84.04(e), that he did not
receive notice of the order because the order was mailed to an al-
legedly incorrect address (his parents’ address) instead of his last
known mailing address.
App. 10
MICHAEL MCKINZY, )
Petitioner, )
) Case No. 02-FC200809-04
vs. ) Division: 43
CARLETHA GASTON )
(MCKINZY), )
)
Respondent. )
Jurisdiction
This Court has continuing subject-matter jurisdic-
tion over all administrative and judicial matters con-
cerning child support pursuant to its July 10, 2002
paternity, child support, and medical support Judg-
ment in case number 02-MC201872, as well as all
modification, enforcement, and other proceedings and
sub-cases subsequently adjudicated by this Court
based thereon.
This Court has continuing subject-matter jurisdic-
tion over all child support, maintenance, emancipation,
enforcement, attorney fee, and other corresponding is-
sues pursuant to its November 8, 2002 Judgment of
Dissolution in case number 02-FC200809, as well as all
modification, enforcement, and other proceedings and
sub-cases subsequently adjudicated by this Court
based thereon.
All four of the parties’ children are over the age of
18 and have already been legally emancipated, such
that this Court no longer has, nor has either party re-
quested this Court to exercise, jurisdiction over the
parties and/or their adult children for custody, visita-
tion, or any other parenting-related purposes.
Neither party has knowledge of any other pending
proceedings regarding the issues presently before this
Court, and neither party is participating in any other
App. 14
Pending Issues
Although several of the matters presented had
been resolved or partially-resolved during the first ev-
identiary hearing on the record on 5/19/2016, as of the
dates of the evidentiary hearing on 1/9/2017 and the
review hearing on March 15, 2017, both parties still
had unresolved issues, pleadings, motions, and other
requests for relief pending before this Court.
The Petitioner’s pleadings generally requested the
following relief: that each of the parties’ four children
be retroactively emancipated as of their 18th birth-
days; that the Petitioner’s child support obligations
terminate retroactively on each child’s 18th birthday;
for a declaration that Petitioner has satisfied his child
support obligations and owes no past due child sup-
port; termination of the Petitioner’s maintenance obli-
gations to the Respondent retroactive to the date of
service; a declaration that Petitioner has satisfied all
maintenance obligations owed; termination of the ex-
isting Income Withholding Order for maintenance and
child support; that any resulting overpayment(s) of
child support be credited against Petitioner’s ongoing
maintenance obligations; for certain discovery sanc-
tions and coordinating relief; and, that summary judg-
ment issue in his favor because two documents from
the original administrative/paternity matter were not
properly served on him in 2002.
The Respondent’s pending pleadings generally re-
quested the following relief: that the Petitioner’s plead-
ings be dismissed for failure to state a claim; for
App. 16
Summary Judgment
On April 18, 2016, Mr. McKinzy filed his: Affidavit;
Motion for Summary Judgment; Suggestions in Sup-
port of Summary Judgment; and, his Statement of Un-
controverted Material Facts.
These constituted the Petitioner’s first set of Sum-
mary Judgment pleadings in this matter, and they
were limited to his pending retroactive emancipation
issues.
On May 4, 2016, Mr. McKinzy withdrew his Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment and corresponding plead-
ings
App. 30
Declaratory Judgment
On September 2, 2015, the Petitioner filed his Mo-
tion to Modify and Motion for Declaratory Judgment.
The Petitioner’s pleadings requested the following
relief via declaratory judgment: that each of the par-
ties’ four children be retroactively emancipated as of
their 18th birthdays; that the Petitioner’s child sup-
port obligations terminate retroactively on each child’s
18th birthday; for a declaration that Petitioner has sat-
isfied his child support obligations and owes no past
due child support; a declaration that Petitioner has
satisfied all maintenance obligations owed; termina-
tion of the existing Income Withholding Order for
maintenance and child support; and, that any result-
ing overpayment(s) of child support be credited against
Petitioner’s ongoing maintenance obligations.
The Petitioner’s modification request was limited
to seeking a modification of the parties’ Dissolution
Judgment by terminating his monthly maintenance
obligations to the Respondent retroactive to the date of
service (Petitioner’s relief request number 6).
The Respondent filed her Answer thereto, and in
her paragraph 13, she asked that most of the Peti-
tioner’s pleading be dismissed for failure to state a
claim; specifically:
“All of the requests for affirmative relief set forth
in the Petitioner’s Motion to Modify and Motion
for Declaratory Judgment (with the exception of
requests 6 and 9), should be dismissed because
the Petitioner’s pleading is legally-insufficient to
App. 36
Arrearages
RSMo. Section 454.520.5 provides that when a
child support and/or maintenance obligor disputes the
amount of arrearages owed or the payment history (as
set forth in the obligee’s payment history computation
App. 69
Interest
Once this Court established the total amount of
child support and/or maintenance arrearages owed by
the Petitioner, the Respondent also asked this Court to
determine the total amount of interest owed on said
arrearages pursuant to RSMo. Section 454.520.3,
which provides, “(A)ll delinquent child support and
maintenance payments which accrue based upon judg-
ments of courts of this state entered on or after Sep-
tember 1, 1982, shall draw interest at the rate of one
percent per month.”
When a statute provides that interest must be
paid or received, this Court has no discretion to refuse
to award interest as directed by the statute. Bohac v.
Akbani, 29 S.W.3d 407 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000).
Respondent’s Exhibits 26 and 77 accurately set
forth the statutory interest accumulated on the Peti-
tioner’s maintenance and child support arrears at the
rate of 1% per month, per annum.
App. 72