In the Missouri Court of Appeals 

Eastern District

DIVISION TWO

DEBORAH POGUE, ) ED107323 

 ) 

Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of 

 ) St. Louis County 

v. ) 13SL-DR01477-01 

 ) 

ANDREW POGUE, ) Honorable Jason D. Dodson 

 ) 

Appellant. ) Filed: November 26, 2019 

OPINION

Andrew Pogue (“Father”) appeals the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to 

modify child support. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

The marriage of Father and Deborah Pogue (“Mother”) was dissolved on May 20, 2014. 

The judgment of dissolution was entered by consent and provided that the parties share joint 

legal and physical1custody of their two minor children with Father paying Mother $105.00 per 

 

1 Each parent was awarded equal periods of physical custody. 
2

month in child support. In June 2017, Father filed a motion to modify his child support 

obligation alleging a substantial and continuing change of circumstances. 

Mother’s gross monthly income had increased from $2,590.00 at dissolution to $5,096.00 

at modification. The parties stipulated Father’s imputed gross monthly income of $2,979.00 

remained the same.2 Both parties included Mother’s increased monthly income in their 

calculation of support pursuant to the Form 14 guidelines. However, the court specifically found 

incorporating the increased income into a “correctly calculated Form 14,” with a Line 11 

thirtyfour percent maximum credit to Father for his overnight visitation yielded only a $7.00 

reduction, and concluded this did not constitute a substantial and continuing change of 

circumstances. The court entered judgment denying Father’s motion to modify child support and 

partially granted Mother’s request for attorneys’ fees. 

DISCUSSION 

Father now raises two points on appeal. In his first point, Father claims the trial court 

erred in denying his motion to modify because there was sufficient evidence of a substantial and 

continuing change of circumstances. In his second point, Father argues the court erred in 

partially granting Mother’s request for attorneys’ fees. 

Point One

In point one, Father claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify because 

the decision was against the weight of the evidence. Father argues there was sufficient evidence 

of a substantial and continuing change of circumstances. 

 

2 Father testified he was voluntarily unemployed at the time of dissolution and is currently a stay home father relying 

on an inheritance and his current spouse for his financial support. 
3

Standard of Review

Our standard of review of the court’s decision regarding modification of child support is 

that of a court-tried case. Kohl v. Kohl, 397 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013). Thus, we 

will affirm the court’s judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against 

the weight of the evidence, or the decision erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. We defer 

to the trial court with regard to determinations of credibility, and we view the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the court’s decision. Schriner v. Edwards, 69 S.W.3d 89, 92 (Mo. App. 

W.D. 2002). We will set aside the trial court’s judgment regarding modification of child support 

on the basis that it is against the weight of the evidence “with caution” and only if there is a firm 

belief the judgment is wrong. Id. 

Pursuant to Section 452.370.1 RSMo (2016), 3child support may be modified “only upon a 

showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms 

unreasonable.” Child support is subject to modification even when, as in this case, the original 

dissolution decree incorporated a settlement agreement between the parties. Kohl, 397 S.W.3d at 

513. The parent seeking modification bears the burden of proof. Id. Once the party seeking 

modification has met his burden to show the required change of circumstances, child support shall 

be determined in accordance with Section 452.340 and the applicable Missouri Supreme Court 

Rules. Id. 

The trial court must follow the two-step process set forth in Rule 88.01 when modifying 

child support. Cross v. Cross, 318 S.W.3d 187, 190 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). First the court must 

determine the presumed correct amount of child support as calculated by the Form 14. Id. 

(quoting Crow v. Crow, 300 S.W.3d 561, 564 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009)). Second, if the court 

 

3 All further statutory references are to RSMo (2016). 
4

concludes this amount is unjust or inappropriate, it must make findings on the record to rebut the 

presumed correct amount. Id. The court can accept the Form 14 amount calculated by a party or 

reject the parties’ Form 14 amounts and prepare its own. Id. “Either way a trial court chooses to 

proceed, the use of Form 14 in calculating child support in a modification proceeding is 

mandatory . . . .” Id. 

In denying Father’s motion to modify, the trial court found the consent child support in 

the dissolution judgment deviated from the presumed Form 14 amount because Father’s Line 11 

adjustment for overnight visitation was fifty percent. However, the Form 14 directions state that 

thirty-four percent is the maximum adjustment for a parent exercising approximately half of the 

overnight custody per year, absent a finding the presumed amount is unjust or inappropriate. See 

Directions, Comments for Use and Examples for Completion of Form No. 14, Line 11 (“If the 

Court finds that application of these rules, including the line 11 credit, are unjust and 

inappropriate, it may apply an overnight visitation or custody adjustment of over 34% and up to 

50% based upon the circumstances of the parties.”); see also McCandless-Glimcher v. Glimcher, 

73 S.W.3d 68, 77 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) and Rackers v. Rackers, 500 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. App. 

W.D. 2016). 

Father’s Form 14 sought a fifty percent credit on Line 11, which would have resulted in 

support meeting the threshold for modification. However, the court adopted Mother’s Form 14 

with the thirty-four percent credit for overnight visitation to Father. The court declined to find 

said amount unjust or inappropriate and concluded the thirty-four percent credit resulted in a 

$7.00 reduction in child support which was not a substantial and continuing change of 
5

circumstances sufficient to warrant modification.4 This finding was supported by the testimony 

of the parties and was not an abuse of discretion. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying 

Father’s motion to modify. Point one is denied. 

Point Two

In his second point on appeal, Father claims the trial court erred awarding Mother a 

portion of her attorneys’ fees because there was a substantial and continuing change of 

circumstances warranting modification, Mother has a higher income than Father, and there was 

no evidence that Father engaged in behavior that increased litigation costs. 

Standard of Review

We review the trial court’s decision to award fees for abuse of discretion. Potts v. Potts, 

303 S.W.3d 177, 191 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). The court abuses its discretion if the award is so 

arbitrary and unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration and shock the sense of 

justice. Id. 

Analysis

Section 452.355.1, in relevant part, grants the trial court the authority to order a party to 

pay attorney’s fees after the court considers “all relevant factors including the financial resources 

of both parties, the merits of the case and the actions of the parties during the pendency of the 

action . . . .” 

 

4 Due to her significant increase in income, if Father had properly pled Mother be designated as the parent paying 

support instead of receiving support - based solely upon the stipulated monthly gross income of each party - she may 

have owed Father child support. However, his own Form 14 listed his income in the column for the parent paying 

support and he only requested his support obligation be terminated based upon a fifty percent Line 11 credit. Thus, 

the court could not be convicted of error for failing to calculate child support in a manner in which it was not 

requested. 
6

The trial court specifically notes in its judgment that Mother has a higher income than 

Father and Father did not engage in unacceptable misconduct while the case was pending. 

However, the court found that Father’s effort to eliminate his child support obligation was 

unsuccessful, and the case was premised on a $7.00 reduction in support per month. As a result, 

the court ordered Father to pay $1,500.00 of Mother’s $3,767.39 total attorney’s fees. In light of 

the evidence of the parties’ financial resources, the minimal reduction in support ultimately 

supported by the evidence, and Father’s failure to succeed in terminating his child support 

obligation, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Mother less than half of her total 

fees. Point two on appeal is denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

___________________________________ 

 Lisa P. Page, Judge 

Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Kurt S. Odenwald, J., concur.