Background
Andrew and Kathy Vollmer married in 2006 and had three children, the eldest of whom has Down syndrome. After the parties separated, Andrew filed for dissolution in June 2023. A consent pendente lite order required him to pay $1,350 per month in child support beginning in December 2023.
Following trial, the circuit court awarded Kathy joint physical custody and sole legal custody, ordered Andrew to pay $2,051 per month for three children, and made the child-support award retroactive to the filing date without expressly crediting his temporary payments. The court also awarded Kathy $2,940 in attorney’s fees after Andrew’s counsel arrived more than three hours late for trial, requiring an additional trial day. Andrew appealed the support credit, fee award, custody determination, and the court’s verbatim adoption of Kathy’s proposed judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals held that Andrew was entitled to credit against retroactive child support for the payments he made under the pendente lite order through entry of the final judgment. Applying Rule 84.14, the court credited $22,950 against the $45,122 retroactive award and modified the amount owed to $22,172, preventing a double payment.
The court otherwise upheld the judgment. Counsel’s tardiness was imputable to Andrew and supported the attorney-fee award. Substantial evidence supported sole legal custody because Andrew had repeatedly deferred or failed to participate in the children’s medical, educational, and other needs, and the record showed the parents could not function jointly in making decisions. Finally, Andrew did not preserve his objection to the judgment’s form because he filed no post-trial motion, and the court declined plain-error review.
Key Takeaways
- A parent owing retroactive child support must receive credit for payments made under a pendente lite order through entry of the final dissolution judgment.
- An attorney’s procedural neglect generally is imputed to the client, including tardiness that causes the opposing party to incur additional legal fees.
- Missouri’s preference for joint custody does not require joint legal custody when substantial evidence shows the parents cannot cooperate as a decision-making unit.
- A challenge to the form or language of a judgment must be raised in a Rule 78.07(c) post-trial motion to be preserved for appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that credit for temporary child-support payments extends through the final judgment, not merely through trial, when support remains payable under a pendente lite order. That rule aligns the credit period with the order’s duration and prevents duplicate support liability.
The opinion also underscores the consequences of counsel’s conduct and the importance of post-trial preservation. Parties may bear financial consequences for their attorney’s neglect, while objections to a judgment’s wording or form can be forfeited if not first presented to the trial court.