Lexplug logoLexplug

Abbott v. Perez

Missouri Court of Appeals
140 S.W.3d 283 (2004)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When calculating a retroactive child support award, a court may only impute income that is within the parent's actual capacity to earn during the specific retroactive period, not an income based on future earning potential after completing professional training.


Facts:

  • Dr. Robert Abbott ('Husband') and Dr. Teresa Perez ('Wife') married on June 6, 1997.
  • During their marriage, Husband was a plastic surgery resident working approximately 80 hours per week, and Wife was the primary caretaker for their child, born August 31, 2000.
  • The couple had a tumultuous relationship involving verbal abuse, including ethnic slurs by Husband, and physical confrontations where both parties admitted to hitting the other.
  • On February 14, 2002, while she and the child were ill, Wife removed the child from daycare in St. Louis and took him to her parents' home in Illinois.
  • The couple separated in February 2002.
  • During the period for which retroactive child support was sought (July 2002 - June 2003), Husband was still a medical resident at Washington University earning a gross monthly salary of $3,692.
  • Wife, a dentist, stopped working full-time on June 28, 2002, after her contract expired; her income in the prior year had been $88,570.

Procedural Posture:

  • Dr. Robert Abbott ('Husband') filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage against Dr. Teresa Perez ('Wife') in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (trial court) on July 1, 2002.
  • On the same day, Wife filed a Cross-Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.
  • The parties entered into a Consent Judgment and Order Pendente Lite on July 1, 2002, which established temporary joint custody and child support.
  • The trial court conducted a four-day hearing on the merits from March 4-7, 2003.
  • On April 3, 2003, the trial court entered its initial judgment dissolving the marriage and settling custody, support, and property issues.
  • Husband filed a Motion for New Trial and/or To Amend the Judgment.
  • On July 31, 2003, the trial court issued an Amended Judgment, which ordered Husband to pay child support based on an imputed income of $200,000 and to pay $16,000 of Wife's attorneys' fees.
  • Husband (appellant) appealed the Amended Judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, with Wife as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trial court abuse its discretion by calculating a retroactive child support award based on an imputed future income that a parent was not capable of earning during the retroactive period while completing a medical residency?


Opinions:

Majority - Patricia L. Cohen

Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by calculating a retroactive child support award based on an imputed future income that a parent was not capable of earning during the retroactive period. While a court can impute income for child support calculations, the imputed amount must be within the parent's actual capacity to earn during the time in question. In this case, there was no evidence that Husband's actual salary of $3,692 per month as a resident was less than his earning potential during that specific period. Therefore, imputing an annual income of $200,000, which he could only earn after completing his residency, was an error for the retroactive award. The court affirmed all other aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the award of sole legal and primary physical custody to Wife, the division of marital debts, and the order for Husband to pay a portion of Wife's attorneys' fees, finding no abuse of discretion in those matters.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the application of imputed income in retroactive child support awards, particularly for parents completing professional education or training. It establishes that a court's imputation of income must be temporally specific, reflecting the parent's actual earning capacity during the past period, not their speculative future potential. This precedent protects individuals in residency, graduate school, or other apprenticeships from being unfairly burdened with support obligations based on a salary they were not yet qualified to earn. The case reinforces that while trial courts have broad discretion, that discretion is not limitless and must be supported by the evidence for the specific time frame at issue.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Abbott v. Perez (2004)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"