In re Marriage of Alexander Schiele v. Corinne Durnal

Alexander Schiele ("Father") appeals the June 1, 2022 amended judgment (the "amended judgment") of the trial court. In a single point on appeal, Father argues the trial court erred as a matter of law in entering the amended judgment as a nunc pro tunc judgment "because Rule 74.06(a) only allows a judgment to be amended nunc pro tunc to correct clerical errors and amending the judgment to add a provision ordering Father to pay child support ... changed the judgment not just the record."1 Because the prior September 27, 2021 judgment (the "September 2021 judgment") did not address all issues raised by the parties and specifically did not include a dollar amount for the child support award, the September 2021 judgment was merely an interlocutory order, not a final judgment. The trial court retained jurisdiction to enter a final judgment, which it did by the amended judgment. We affirm the amended judgment.



Factual Background and Procedural History



A court in Bexar County, Texas entered a Final Decree of Divorce in November 2017 dissolving the marriage of Father and Mother (the "Texas judgment"). As to child support, the Texas judgment provides: "The parties agree neither party shall pay the other party child support." In January 2019, Mother moved the Missouri trial court to register the Texas judgment as a foreign judgment, and then moved to modify the Texas judgment and sought an award of child support from Father. The trial court held a hearing on the motion to modify on February 24, 2021 and September 13, 2021. The trial court made a docket entry on September 13, 2021, which is not denominated a judgment, but provides as follows as to child support:



The presumed amount of support for [F]ather to pay [M]other is $615.00 per month. [Father] is ordered to pay [Mother] child support of $500.00 per month retroactive to June 1, 2021, after [Mother] resumed custody of the child from her parents, to continue on the 1st of each month thereafter until futher [sic] order of court or the child is no longer eligible for support under Missouri law. This is a downward deviation from Rule 88 and Form 14 guidelines and calculations after the Court has considered all relevant factors under Section 452.340.1 RSMo and that [F]ather is responsible for transportation expenses.



[670 S.W.3d 484]



The trial court then entered the September 2021 judgment. The September 2021 judgment provides: "Child Support shall be paid by [Father] in accordance with Rule 88.01 Form 14 guidelines (Section 452.310.8(3)(a) RSMo)[.]" No dollar amount of child support is specified.



On June 1, 2022, Mother filed an Application for Nunc Pro Tunc Order requesting the trial court enter an amended judgment providing Father is to pay Mother $500 per month in child support, retroactive to June 1, 2021. On the same date, the trial court entered the amended judgment providing:



The presumed amount of support for [F]ather to pay [M]other is $615.00 per month. [Father] is ordered to pay [Mother] child support of $500.00 per month retroactive to June 1, 2021, after [Mother] resumed custody of the child from her parents, to continue on the 1st of each month thereafter until further order of court or the child is no longer eligible for support under Missouri law.



The amended judgment does not mention nunc pro tunc. The record has an email from the trial court to counsel indicating the trial court entered the amended judgment nunc pro tunc without notice and hearing to correct "the omission" in the September 2021 judgment, which the trial court indicated "was clearly apparent, and which left out what my docket entry said[.]" Father moved to vacate, reopen, correct, amend, or modify the amended judgment, which the trial court denied after a hearing. Father timely appealed the amended judgment.



Schiele v. Durnal, 670 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. App. 2023)