Title: Lindhorst v. Lindhorst

State: missouri

Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
 
In re the Marriage of Tanya L. Lindhorst and 
) 
Eric J. Lindhorst; 
 
 
 
 
)         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Tanya L. Lindhorst, n/k/a Tanya L. Templeton, ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Appellant, 
 
 
) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC90996 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Eric J. Lindhorst, 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Respondent.  
 
) 
 
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County 
The Honorable Robert S. Cohen, Judge  
 
Opinion issued June 14, 2011 
 
Tonya Templeton (formerly Tonya Lindhorst) appeals from the trial court’s 
judgment modifying a dissolution decree.  Ms. Templeton asserts the trial court erred in 
decreasing the maintenance award from $1,000 per month to $500 per month and in 
failing to make the modified child support award retroactive.  The judgment decreasing 
maintenance is reversed because the trial court erred in imputing $1,600 per month in 
income that Ms. Templeton could earn though part-time work while assuming that she 
would continue to receive $1,215.60 per month in Social Security disability benefits.  The 
judgment also is reversed to the extent that the modified child support award is not made 
retroactive.  In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.  
FACTS 
   
Ms. Templeton and Eric Lindhorst divorced in 1998.  The couple had two 
children.  The dissolution decree ordered Mr. Lindhorst to pay $1,100 in child support 
and $1,000 in maintenance.  When the dissolution decree was entered, Ms. Templeton 
was employed as a registered nurse earning $1,387 per month.  Mr. Lindhorst was 
employed as attorney and was earning $5,500 per month.     
In 2003, the Social Security Administration determined that Ms. Templeton was 
eligible for disability benefits due to rheumatoid arthritis, anemia and hypothyroidism.  In 
2008, Mr. Lindhorst filed a motion to modify the decree by reducing his child support 
obligations and eliminating his maintenance obligations.  Ms. Templeton filed a motion 
to modify requesting an increase in child support and a college provision.  As of the date 
of trial on the motion for modification, Ms. Templeton was receiving $1,215.60 in 
disability benefits for herself and $668 per month for her two children.   Mr. Lindhorst 
earned $125,000 per year from his law practice.   
 
At trial, Ms. Templeton’s treating physician testified that Ms. Templeton’s 
arthritis left her unable to work.  Mr. Lindhorst’s expert medical witness testified that his 
observations of Ms. Templeton on surveillance videos led him to conclude that Ms. 
Templeton was not disabled and could return to work.  Mr. Lindhorst also offered 
testimony from a vocational rehabilitation expert who testified that Ms. Templeton could 
earn a full time annual salary of up to $52,000 based upon a sedentary level of activity.    
The trial court found that Ms. Templeton was not totally disabled and was able to 
perform part-time sedentary work.  The court concluded that Ms. Templeton could work 
20 hours per week and could earn $20 per hour for 48 weeks out of the year for an 
average income of $1,600 per month.  The trial court recognized the imputed income 
from part-time employment as “income in addition to her Social Security disability 
benefit.”   The court reduced Mr. Lindhorst’s monthly maintenance obligation from 
$1000 to $500 but increased his monthly child support obligation from $1,100. to $1,273.  
The trial court also ordered Mr. Lindhorst to pay 85 percent of the children’s post-
secondary education costs.  The trial court did not make the modified child support award 
retroactive to the date that Ms. Templeton served her motion to increase Mr. Lindhorst’s 
child support obligations.   Ms. Templeton appeals.   
ANALYSIS 
Appellate review of a trial court’s judgment modifying a dissolution decree is 
limited to determining whether the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is 
against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law.  
Katsantonis v. Katsantonis, 245 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Mo.App. 2008).  The provisions of 
any judgment respecting maintenance or support “may be modified only upon a showing 
of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms” of the 
original award unreasonable.  Section 452.370.1, RSMo Supp. 2007.  Changed 
circumstances sufficient to support modification must be proven by detailed evidence and 
must also show that the prior decree is unreasonable.  Katsantonis, 245 S.W.3d at 927.  
The party seeking modification has the burden to establish that the terms of the original 
decree have become unreasonable.   Id.  
 
3
I. Maintenance 
Ms. Templeton argues that the trial court erred in reducing Mr. Lindhorst’s 
monthly maintenance obligation because there is not substantial evidence to support the 
judgment and because the court erred as a matter of law in decreasing Mr. Lindhorst’s 
monthly maintenance obligations because the judgment erroneously imputes income 
from part-time employment while assuming the continued receipt of Social Security 
disability benefits.1  The latter argument is dispositive.  The trial court found that Ms. 
Templeton could work more than 80 hours per month and earn $1,600 per month from 
employment while still receiving Social Security disability benefits.  Ms. Templeton may 
be able to work more than 80 hours per month and earn $1,600, but she cannot receive 
Social Security disability benefits simultaneously.   
Federal social security disability benefits are intended to “replace income lost due 
to the recipient’s inability to work.”  Weaks v. Weaks, 821 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Mo. banc 
1991).  The applicable regulations provide that disability benefits will stop if the recipient 
engages in “substantial gainful activity.”  20 C.F.R. 404.401a.  “Substantial gainful 
activity” is any work activity that involves significant mental or physical activities and is 
undertaken for pay or profit.  20 C.F.R. 404.1572.  A recipient is deemed to have engaged 
                                                 
1 Ms. Templeton argues that there was no substantial evidence to support a finding that 
she was able to obtain employment and that Mr. Lindhorst’s maintenance obligations 
should be reduced accordingly.  The judgment was supported by substantial evidence. 
First, a social security determination is not binding on Missouri courts.  In re Marriage of 
Liljedahl, 942 S.W.2d 919, 925 n.11 (Mo. App. 1996).  Second, Ms. Templeton and Mr. 
Lindhorst offered qualified medical experts who offered differing opinions about Ms. 
Templeton’s disability.  The trial court found that Mr. Lindhorst’s expert was more 
persuasive.  Given the standard of review, there are not sufficient grounds for reversing 
the trial court’s factual determinations.  
 
4
in substantial gainful activity if the recipient works more than 80 hours per month or 
earns a monthly net income of more than $530.   20 C.F.R  404.1592.  In reducing Mr. 
Lindhorst’s monthly maintenance obligation, the trial court imputed to Ms. Templeton 
the ability to work 80 hours a month and earn $1,600 per month.  That level of work and 
income would constitute “substantial gainful activity” disqualifying Ms. Templeton from 
continued Social Security disability benefits.  See 20 C.F.R. 404.401a.  Consequently, the 
trial court erred in considering both the imputed income and Ms. Templeton’s Social 
Security disability benefit as a basis for reducing Mr. Lindhorst’s monthly maintenance 
obligation.   
The judgment with respect to Mr. Lindhorst’s maintenance obligations is reversed.   
II.  Retroactive Child Support 
 
Ms. Templeton also argues that the trial court erred by not making the modified 
child support award retroactive to the date on which Mr. Lindhorst was served with the 
motion to modify.  St. Louis County Local Rule 68.9(1) provides that modified child 
support is retroactive.  However, the effective date of a modification is left to the 
discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless the appellant 
demonstrates an abuse of discretion.  Payne v. Payne, 206 S.W.3d 379, 386 (Mo. App. 
2006).   
 
The trial court declined to make the child support award retroactive in part 
because of Ms. Templeton’s receipt of Social Security benefits for herself and for her 
children.  In so doing, the trial court overcame the presumption of retroactivity by relying 
on the assumption that Ms. Templeton’s financial situation included both the $1,600 in 
 
5
 
6
imputed income and the continued receipt of Social Security disability benefits.  As 
previously determined, Ms. Templeton cannot earn $1,600 per month from employment 
while continuing to receive Social Security disability benefits.  Therefore, that part of the 
judgment declining to make the increased child support obligation retroactive is reversed. 
The remainder of the judgment is affirmed.   
 
The case is remanded. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
____________________________________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Richard B. Teitelman, Judge  
 
 
All concur.