1/3/2017

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR

No. ED96630 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2012)

JOHNSON V. MARCH

PatriciaL.Cohen

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County

Honorable Douglas R. Beach

Introduction
PhillipMarch(Father),actingproe,claimthatthetrialcourterredindeninghimotiontovacateor
etaideanadminitrativeorderenteredtheFamilupportDiviion(FD)requiringFathertopa
child upport. A we undertand Father' point on appeal, Father argue that the trial court erred in
deninghimotiontovacatetheadminitrativeorderecaue:(1)theorderwainvalid,unenforceale,
andvoid;(2)thetrialcourtlackedauthorittoenforcetheorder;and(3)thetrialcourtlackedperonal
juridictionoverFather.Fatheraloclaimthetrialcourterredinfailingtotrikethedocumentfiled
theFDanddeningFather'motiontoreconider.Weaffirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

1

Father and Tawanda Johnon have a on, who wa orn Januar 25, 2003. (/cae/johnon-v-march1#idm140343204379488)OnMa11,2005,theFDenteredanoticeandfindingoffinancialreponiilit
orderingFathertoprovide *2healthinuranceandpachildupportforhionintheamountof$725.00

https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

1/12

1/3/2017

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

permonth.FDervedFatherwiththenoticeandfindingoffinancialreponiilitonAugut26,2005.
Oneptemer9,2005,FatherwrotetheFDaletterrequetinganadminitrativehearingandakingthe
FDto"endallmailing[ic]to...8310Hawkeur,t.Loui,MO,63121."
1 TherecordreflectthatFatherexecutedanaffidavitacknowledginghipaternit.

OnJanuar23,2006,theadminitrativehearingofficerconductedatelephonehearinginwhichFather,
M. Johnon, and Rhonda Cropp, a FD technician, participated. The adminitrative hearing officer
entered a deciion and order on April 3, 2006, ordering Father to pa child upport in the amount of
$532.00 per month ("2006 Order"). The FD mailed the 2006 Order to Father at 8310 Hawkeur on
April 5, 2006. The trial court docketed the 2006 Order on Ma 2, 2006. Father did not file a timel
petitionforreview,and,puruanttoection536.110.1,theorderecamefinalonMa5,2006,thirtda
aftertheFDmailedtheordertoFather.
On Novemer 11, 2010, Father filed hi third amended motion to vacate, et aide, or correct the
judgment ("Motion to Vacate") arguing, interalia,that the 2006 Order wa void for failure of ervice.2
(/cae/johnon-v-march-1#idm140343201199744) The trial court held a hearing on Father' Motion to
Vacate on Januar 31, 2011. The trial court found that the FD mailed Father the notice and finding of
financial reponiilit at the addre he provided and entered an order dimiing Father' Motion to
Vacate.*3
2 Fatherfiledhioriginalmotiontovacate,etaide,orcorrectthejudgmentoneptemer15,2010.

FatherfiledamotiontoreconideronFeruar24,2011("MotiontoReconider").Thetrialcourtheard
tetimon and argument on Father' Motion to Reconider and the underling Motion to Vacate and
denied oth motion on April 11, 2011.3(/cae/johnon-v-march-1#idm140343195294288) Father appeal,
proe.
3 At the hearing on April 11, 2011, the trial court alo "re-denominated" the Januar 31, 2011 order a a
judgment.

Standard of Review
"Inanappealfollowingjudicialreviewofanagencactionatrialcourt,wereviewthedeciionofthe
agenc, not the trial court." Lajeunee v. tate, 350 .W.3d 842, 844 (/cae/lajeunee-v-tate-1#p844)
(Mo.App.W.D. 2009). We defer to the adminitrative agenc' finding of fact ut review it
interpretation,application,orconcluionoflawdenovo.Id.;ection536.140.3.4(/cae/johnon-v-march1#idm140343203718704)
https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

2/12

1/3/2017

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

4 AlltatutorreferencearetoRMo2000aupplemented,unleotherwieindicated.

Discussion
Inhifirtpointonappeal,FatherclaimthetrialcourterredindeninghiMotiontoVacatethe2006
5

Order ecaue the order wa "invalid, unenforceale, and void a a matter of law." (/cae/johnon-vmarch-1#idm140343199055552)Morepecificall,Fathercontendthatthe2006Orderivoidecauethe
adminitrativehearingofficerwaiaedagainthim.Inupportofthiallegation,Fathercontendthat
M.Johnonfaleltetifiedthatheearnedleincomethanreflectedinherparollchecktuandthe
hearingofficerknowinglaedhichildupportcalculationuponthimiinformation.
5 AlthoughnotclearinFather'pointreliedonorargument,weelieveheichallengingthevaliditofthe
2006 Order a it wa docketed the trial court on Ma 2, 2006 and gained "all the force, effect, and
attriuteofadocketedorderordecreeofthecircuitcourt...."Mo.Rev.tat.454.490.1.

Rule 74.06()(4) provide that a court "ma relieve a part or hi legal repreentative from a final
judgmentororder...[if]thejudgmentivoid."Rule74.06()(4);ForthFin.Group,LLCv.Hae,351
.W.3d 738, 740 (/cae/forth-fin-grp#p740) (Mo.App.W.D. 2011). "In the ound interet of finalit, the
conceptofvoidjudgmentmutenarrowlretricted."Plattv.Platt,815.W.2d *4 82, 84 (/cae/platt-vplatt-16#p84)(Mo.App..D.1991)(quoting7J.Moore&J.Luca,Moore'FederalPractice60.25[2](2d
ed.1991)).AjudgmentivoidunderRule74.06()(4)"onlifthecourtthatrendereditlackedjuridiction
of the partie or the uject matter or acted in a manner inconitent with due proce of law."6
(/cae/johnon-v-march-1#idm140343198857056) axi v. United Tech. Auto. Corp., 122 .W.3d 92, 96
(/cae/axi-v-united-technologie-automotive#p96) (Mo.App..D. 2003). "[J]udgment have een
declared void for lack of due proce when litigant have een denied notice of critical proceeding or
wereujecttoinvoluntarwaiverofclaim."ForthFin.,351.W.3dat741(/cae/forth-fin-grp#p741).
Ajudgmentinotvoidimplecaueitierroneou.Id.at740.
6 FatherdoenotchallengetheFD'authorittoiuethe2006OrderortheFD'peronaljuridiction
over Father. We note, however, that the FD ha authorit to determine and enforce child upport
oligation puruant to ection 454.400. FD had peronal juridiction over Father ecaue Father
reidedint.LouiCountandignedanacknowledgmentofpaternitform,which"halleconidered
alegalfindingofpaternit."Mo.Rev.tat.210.823.1.

At the adminitrative hearing on Januar 23, 2006, M. Johnon and M. Cropp tetified a to M.
Johnon'income.ThehearingofficerakedM.Croppto"pleaegoaheadandexplaintheparentpaing
upport'incomeandtheparentreceivingupport'income,"andM.Cropptetifiedthat"thecutodial
parent'incomei$1,972."Laterinthehearing,thehearingofficerakedM.Johnon,"Howmuchdoou
https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

3/12

1/3/2017

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

make;whatiouralar?,"andM.Johnonreplied,"It'like1,200amonth;11to12amonth."Inthe
2006 Order, the FD found: "Mother' monthl gro income i $1,200.00." The 2006 Order explain:
"Mother'incomeiaedonhercredil[ic]tetimonthatheearn$1,200.00permonth.aedon
that,Mother'monthlgroincomei$1,200.00permonth."
Here, Father allege that the hearing officer erred in finding that M. Johnon earned $1,200.00 per
month,andnot$1,972.00permonth,andaareult,thechildupportoligationrequiredthe2006
Orderwatoohigh.Aprevioultated,thicourtwillnotfinda *5 judgmentvoidmerelecaueiti
erroneou.ForthFin.,351.W.3dat740(/cae/forth-fin-grp#p740).TotheextentthatFatherargue
that the 2006 Order i void ecaue M. Johnon "knowingl tetif[ied] falel" and the hearing officer
"knewhewanoteingtruthful"whenheaedthechildupportcalculationonM.Johnon'tetimon
thatheearned$1,200.00permonth,uchaclaimdoenottateaaiforfindingthejudgment"void"
under Rule 74.06. "It i clear that in thi tate a judgment a Court, having juridiction, ma not e
attackedcollaterallecaueofperjuredtetimongoingtothemeritofthecae."Vincelv.Vincel,439
.W.2d227,228(/cae/vincel-v-vincel#p228)(Mo.App.1969)."Theallegedperjurheregoeoleltothe
mattertriedandfurnihenoaifordeclaringthejudgmentvoid."Id.
AtoFather'claimthatthehearingofficerwaiaedagainthim,wepreume"thatajudgeactwith
honet and integrit and will not preide over a trial in which he or he cannot e impartial."
Worthington v. tate, 166 .W.3d 566, 579 (/cae/worthington-v-tate-18#p579) (Mo. anc 2005). "ia
mut arie generall from an extrajudicial ource that reult in the judge forming an opinion on the
meritaedonomethingotherthanwhatthejudgehalearnedfromparticipationinthecae."Daviv.
chmidt,210.W.3d44,520(Mo.App.W.D.2007).Ourreviewofrecordonappealand,inparticular,the
trancript of the Januar 23, 2006 adminitrative hearing, reveal no demontrale ia the hearing
officer.Pointdenied.
Inhiecondpointonappeal,FatherclaimthetrialcourterredindeningFather'MotiontoVacatethe
2006Orderecauethetrialcourtlackedauthorittoenforcethe2006Order.7(/cae/johnon-v-march1#idm140343194286928)Morepecificall,Fathercontendthatthetrialcourtdocketedthe2006Order
fewer*6thanthirtdaafteritwaiuedtheFD,theredeprivingthetrialcourtofauthoritand
violatingFather'righttodueproce.Inrepone,theFDaertthatthereinotatutorrequirement
thatthetrialcourtwaitthirtdaeforedocketinganadminitrativeorder.
7 Fatherclaimthatthetrialcourtlacked"ujectmatterjuridiction"overthe2006Order.Atrialcourt'
uject matter juridiction i determined the Miouri Contitution, which provide circuit court
"originaljuridictionoverall cae and matter, civil and criminal." Mo. Cont. art V, ec. 14 (emphai
https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

4/12

1/3/2017

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

added);ee alo J.C.W. ex rel. We v. Wcikalla, 275 .W.3d 249, 253 (/cae/jcw-v-wcikalla-1#p253)
(Mo. anc 2009). We therefore conider Father' point on appeal a a challenge to the trial court'
authorit.

Underection454.470and454.475,aparentmachallengeanallegationcontainedinanFDnoticeand
findingofreponiilitrequetingahearinganadminitrativeofficer,whoefindingandorder
ecome the deciion of the FD director. Mo. Rev. tat. 454.470.4, 454.475.5. Copie of the hearing
officer'order"hallemailedtoanparent,peronhavingcutodofthechildandthediviionwithin
fourteendaofiuance."Mo.Rev.tat.454.475.5.Aparentwhoiadverelaffectedtheorderma
otain judicial review filing a petition for review in the trial court within thirt da of the order'
mailing. Id.; ee alo tate ex rel. Hilurn v. taeden, 91 .W.3d 607, 610 (/cae/tate-ex-rel-hilurn-vtaeden#p610)(Mo.anc2002).Meanwhile,"[a]truecopofanorderenteredthedirector...along
withatruecopofthereturnofervice,maefiledwiththeclerkofthecircuitcourt...inthecount
whereeithertheparentorthedependentchildreideorwheretheupportorderwafiled."Mo.Rev.
tat. 454.490.1. "Upon filing, the clerk hall enter the order in the judgment docket," and "[u]pon
docketing, the order hall have all the force, effect, and attriute of a docketed order or decree of the
circuitcourt...."Id.
Nowhere doe the tatute require the trial court to wait thirt da efore docketing the child upport
order.Nordoetheproceoffilinganddocketingthechildupportorderinthetrialcourttollaparent'
thirt-da period to file a petition for review in the trial court. Mo. Rev. tat. 474.475.5. A previoul
dicued, the hearing officer entered the 2006 Order on April 3, 2006 and mailed it to Father at 8310
Hawkeur,hilatknownaddre,onApril5,2006.*7
Incompliancewithection454.490.1,thetrialcourtfiledanddocketedthe2006OrderonMa2,2006.
The trial court' act of docketing the 2006 Order in no wa impeded Father' ailit to eek judicial
review. Per tatute, Father wa allowed thirt da, or until Ma 5, 2006, to eek judicial review of the
2006Order,andhefailedtodoo.
Fatheralocontendthathi"onlrecoure...itoakforamodification,"andthi"clearldeprive
[Father]ofdue-proceofpetitioningandexhautinghiremedtojudicialreview."Aprevioultated,
thetrialcourt'docketingofthe2006OrderdidnotprecludeFatherfromeekingjudicialreviewonor
eforeMa5,2006,whentheorderecamefinal.Furthermore,theMiouriupremeCourthaheldthat
ection 454.490.1, which allow child upport order to e entered with "all the force, effect, and
attriuteofadocketedorderordecreeofthecircuitcourt,"icontitutional.tate ex rel. Hilurn,91
.W.3dat612(/cae/tate-ex-rel-hilurn-v-taeden#p612).TheupremeCourtexplainedthatchapter454
https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

5/12

1/3/2017

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

"provide numerou afeguard on adminitrativel entered upport order," including: the right to
challenge a FD notice and finding of financial reponiilit requeting a hearing efore an
adminitrative hearing officer and the right to file a timel petition for judicial review of the hearing
officer'deciion.Id.at609-10.
Finall, we note that Father i not without recoure ecaue, puruant to ection 454.500, "at an time
after the entr of an order . . . the oligated parent . . . ma file a motion for modification with the
director." Mo. Rev. tat. 454.500; Hae v. Porter, 30 .W.3d 845, 847 (/cae/hae-v-porter#p847)
(Mo.App..D.2000).IfFatherremaindiatifiedwiththedirector'order,thenhehatheopportunit
to file a timel petition for judicial review puruant to ection 454.475. Hae, 30 .W.3d at 847. Point
denied.*8
Inhithirdpointonappeal,FatherclaimthetrialcourterredindeninghiMotiontoVacate"ecaue
thetrialcourtlackedperonaljuridictionoverhimecauehewaneverervedand[therei]noproof
thathewaerved."Wediagree.
Father"ireponilefornotifingthe[FD]ofanchangeofaddreoremploment."Mo.Rev.tat.
454.470.1(13).Oneptemer9,2005,FatherentalettertotheFDdirectingitto"endallmailing[ic]
to...8310Hawkeur."ection454.470.5requiretheFDtoend"acopoftheorderregularmail
addreed to the parent' lat known addre . . . ." Mo. Rev. tat. 454.470.5. The record on appeal
containacertificateofervicetatingthataclerkfortheadminitrativehearingofficermailedthe2006
OrdertoFatherat8310HawkeuronApril5,2006.Wepreume"thatadocumentdulmailedhaeen
received the addreee." Weidnerv.Anderon,174 .W.3d 672, 678 (/cae/weidner-v-anderon#p678)
(Mo.App..D.2005);eealoRule43.01(d)("ervicemailicompleteuponmailing.").
Father maintain that, ecaue he cannot read the ignature on the certificate of ervice, it doe not
contituteproofofervice.Fathercitenoupportforhicontentionthattheignatureonacertificateof
ervicemutelegile.Pointdenied.
Inhifinalpointonappeal,Fatherclaimthetrialcourterredinnottrikingthedocumentfiledthe
FDandindeningFather'MotiontoReconidertheorderofJanuar31,2011,inwhichthetrialcourt
dimiedFather'MotiontoVacate.Morepecificall,FatheraertthattheFDfailedtoprovidehim
copieofthedocument8(/cae/johnon-v-march-1#idm140343198385024)itpreentedtothetrialcourt

https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

6/12

1/3/2017

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

atthehearingonJanuar31,2011untilimmediatelpriortothathearing.Fatherfurtherallegethatthe
lettertothetrialcourtandthecertificationofrecord,whichtatethatGinaoxerger, *9 chiefcounel
fortheFD,mailedthedocumenttoFatheronJanuar10,2011,were"deceptiveandfale."
8 AcertificationofrecordignedGinaoxerger,chiefcounelfortheFD,tatethatthedocument
included "a complete trancript of the entire record, proceeding and evidence efore the Agenc and
includeacopofthefinalAgencdeciionenteredinthicae."
--------

Thepurpoeofthetrialcourt'hearingonJanuar31,2011watoconiderFather'MotiontoVacatethe
2006 Order on the ground that the FD failed to provide him proper notice. At the eginning of the
hearing, the trial court tated that it howed "the entire file to Father." Father then affirmed that the
ignature on the eptemer 9, 2005 letter to the FD, in which Father directed the FD to mail all
communication to the Hawkeur addre, wa hi. The trial court entered an order the ame da
dimiingFather'MotiontoVacateecauethetrialcourtfoundthattheFDmailedFatherthefinding
andnoticeoffinancialreponiilit.
Father filed a Motion to Reconider the Januar 31, 2011 order, and the trial court heard argument on
April11,2011.Atthehearing,FatherconcededthatthetrialcourtallowedhimtimetoreviewtheFD'
record prior to the Januar 31, 2011 hearing, ut complained that the amount of time wa inufficient.
Fatherargued,"[T]hehouldhaveervedmewithacopwiththenewinformationoIcouldhavehad
timeforproperreuttal."Thetrialcourtreponded,"ir,Iamgivingouthattimerightnow.otellwhat
iti-whateleougotthat-ecaueIamcorrectingthaterrortoda.Youhavehadthetime.It'now
April.oouhavehadallthattime.Whatelehaveougottotellme?,"andFatherreplied,"That'aout
it,YourHonor."
"Thetrialcourtivetedwithroaddicretiontocontroldicover,"and"[t]hidicretionincludethe
trial court' choice of remedie to addre the non-dicloure of evidence during dicover." Zimmerv.
Fiher, 171 .W.3d 76, 79 (/cae/zimmer-v-fiher#p79) (Mo.App..D. 2005). aed on our review of the
record,weholdthatthetrialcourtdidnotaueitdicretioninfailingtotrikethedocumentfiled
theFDonJanuar31,2011.WefurtherconcludethatanprejudicethatFathermighthaveufferedaa
reult of the FD' alleged late production of the document wa *10 remedied the trial court at the
April11,2011hearing,andthetrialcourtdidnoterrindeningtheMotiontoReconider.Pointdenied.

Conclusion
Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtiaffirmed.
https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

7/12

1/3/2017

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

___________________________

PatriciaL.Cohen,PreidingJudge
GlennA.Norton,J.,and

RoertM.ClatonIII,J.,concur.

(https://twitter.com/casetext)

Contact (mailto:contact@casetext.com) Features (/features) Pricing (/pricing) Terms (/terms)

Privacy (/privacy) About (/about) Jobs (/jobs) Press (/about#press) Students (/students)

(https://www.facebook.com/casetext)
2016 Casetext, Inc.
Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not attorneys or a law firm and do not provide legal advice.

https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

8/12

1/3/2017

Johnson v. March

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

No. ED96630, 8 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2012)

https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

9/12

1/3/2017

Johnson v. March

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

No. ED96630, 8 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2012)

https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

10/12

1/3/2017

Johnson v. March

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

No. ED96630, 8 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2012)

https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

11/12

1/3/2017

Johnson v. March

Johnsonv.March,No.ED96630(Mo.Ct.App.Apr.24,2012)|Casetext

No. ED96630, 8 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2012)

https://casetext.com/case/johnsonvmarch1

12/12