# In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF MISSOURI

, ) No. ED1023 95

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, )

FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION, )

)

Respondent

, )

)

vs. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court

) of St. Louis County

) 14SL

- DR02702

)

CENTREC CARE, INC., ) Honorable Ellen H. Ribaudo

)

Appellant

. ) FILED: October 20, 2015

OPINION

Centrec Care, Inc. (Centrec) appeals from the judgment entered in favor o f the State of

Missouri Department of Social Services Family Support Division (State) on its Verified Petition

to Enforce Child Support Withholding Order pursuant to Section 454.505, RSMo 2000. 1 We

affirm as modified

.

Factual and Procedural Background

Jason Mo le n hour (Molenhour) was an employee at Centrec. On Feb r uary 6, 20 1 2

, the

Di r ector of the Family Sup p ort Division ( Div i sion ) issued a n inc o me w ithholdi n g order dire c ting

Centrec to w i thho l d $309

. 00 p e r mon t h from Molenhour ’ s e arnings f or payme n t of chi l d s u pport

.

On Fe b ruary 6, 2014

, the Director i ssued a second order d irecti n g Centrec to wi t hhold $1 0 0. 0 0

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as amended.2

per month fr o m Molenhour’ s ear n ings for child support arrearage

. A t ot al obli g ation o f

$7,907

. 00 a c cumu la ted under the two separate o r de r s

. Even though Centrec was notified and

aware of both o rder s

, it f

ailed to with h old the required amounts fr o m Molenhour’ s ea r nin g s

.

Consequently, on April 25, 2014, t he Division filed a Ve r ified Pe t ition t o Enforce C hild S up p ort

With h olding Or d er ; Centrec did not file an answer

.

On September 29, 2014, t he trial c ourt he l d a hearing o n the Divi s io n ’ s p e t ition. Centrec

a rgued at the hearing t hat Molenhour only owed $4,5 6 0.00, a nd consequently th a t its l ia bility was

limited to that am o unt

. However, c er t ified copies of the support calculation summary that were

int r od u ced into e viden c e by the D ivision sh o wed Molenhour ’ s support obligation, on t h e date of

the hearing

, was $ 9,71 0 .00

. The trial court entered its judgment ordering Centrec to p ay a f i ne of

$ 5 00.00 for fa i lure to w i thho l d under ea c h of t h e t wo order s

, for a tot a l of $ 1

, 0 00. 0 0 , and ent e red

j u dgm e nt agai n st Centrec for $7, 4 07. 0 0 “ for t he sum t hat w as ordered t o be w ith h eld and was n o t

wi t hheld.” T his amount a p pears to be a typog r aphic a l err o r, since t h e tot a l a m ount act u ally d ue

under the orders w a s $7,9 0 7.00 and t he l a n guage of the judgment clearly demonstrates t h at the

trial c ou r t intend e d for Centrec to p ay the full amount it was ordered t o wit h hold. 2 This appeal

follows.

Standard of Review

This co urt will affirm the trial court’ s judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to

support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.

Missouri Department of Social Services, Family Support Division v. J & J Industrial Supply,

Inc.

, 45 9 S.W.3d 478, 480 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015); Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.

2 Our c ourt may correct this error without remand, where, as here, the record leaves no doubt as

to the trial court’s intention. Rule 84.14.3

b anc 1976). Additional principles guiding our standard of review are set forth below as relevant

to the issues on appeal

.

Discussion

Centrec raises two points on appeal that are interrelated. For ease of discussion, we

address them together. In its first point, Centrec argues the trial court erred in ordering payment

in the amount of $1,000.00 in fines because Section 454.505 only allows an award of $500. In

its second poi nt, Centrec argues the trial court erred in ordering payment of $7,907.00 because

this amount was in excess of what was actually owed in child support payments.

Section 4 54. 5 05.8 p r ovides in pertinent part :

.... An employer or other payer who fails or refuses to withhold or pay the

amounts as ordered pursuant to this section shall be liable to the party holding the

support rights in an amount equal to the amount which became due the parent

during the relevant peri od and which, pursuant to the order, should have been

withheld and paid over. The director is hereby authorized to bring an action in

circuit court to determine the liability of an employer or other payer for failure to

withhold or pay the amounts as orde red. If a court finds that a violation has

occurred, the court may fine the employer in an amount not to exceed five

hundred dollars. The court may also enter a judgment against the employer for

the amounts to be withheld or paid, court costs and reas ona ble attorney’ s fees.

[Emphasis added.] In determining the application of S ection 454.505.8

, we first tur n to the

statutory language. “ The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative

intent as reflected in the pla in language of the statute.” State ex rel. Burns v. Whittington , 219

S.W.3d 224, 225 (Mo. banc 2007). We must presume “ [e]very word, sentence or clau se in a

statute” has effect. Wehrenberg, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue , 352 S.W .3d 366, 367 (Mo. banc 2011).

“ Absent a s tatutory definition, words used in statutes are given their plain and ordinary meaning

with help, as n eeded, from the dictionary.” Balloons Over the Rainbow, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue

,

427 S.W.3d 815, 825 (Mo. banc 2014 ). Here, t he pl ai n langu a ge of Sectio n 45 4 .505.8 s hows that

i t s intent i s to enforce c o mpli a nce with the Direc t or’ s o rders and asse s s a p enalty a gainst4

employe r s who fail t o withho l d or p ay as ordere d

. 3 Centrec ad m its t h at there were t wo s e parate

o rders and t h e pla i n and ord i nary m ean i ng of Section 454.505.8 is th a t “ a v iolation” me a ns a

f ail ure to comp l y wi t h one or d er. As such, Centrec’s failure to c o mply with the t wo orders

warranted the trial court assessing a $5 0 0.00 fine f or each violati o n. Point I is denied.

With respect to Centrec’s second point, t he tri a l co u rt p r oper l y f ound that Centrec was

liable for the sums due under t he two income wi t hho l ding o r der s . Again, looking at the plain

language of Section 454. 5 05.8, the trial court was a ut h orized t o e n ter judgment aga i nst Centrec

f or the am o unt that “ shou l d h av e been with h e ld and pa i d over

. ” While Centrec alleges it owed

only $ 4 ,560

. 00 in c hild s u p p ort, based on a bill f r om the Family Support Payment Center that

was ad m itted into evi d ence a s E x hibit A , the Division ’ s certi f ied r ecords, show th a t this was a

parti a l bill f

or chi l d support and n ot a bill for Molenhour’ s t otal arr e ars

. Exhibit 6 , which was

of f ered by t he Di v ision and a d mitted into evi d ence w ith o ut object i on

, sh o wed t h at Molenhour’s

actual a rrears tota l ed $9, 7 10.0 0

, n ot $4, 5 60.00

. Based on this unrebutted evidence, the trial

court properly found Centrec liable for $7,907.00, the sums due and owing under the income

withholding orders. Point II is denied.

3 The trial court’s jud g m e nt asses s ing a separate penalty f or Centrec’s failure t o comply with

e ach order is s uppor t ed b y other p r ovisi o ns within Section 454

. 505. For example, Section

454. 5 05.3. provide s, in pertin e nt p a rt:

An order e ntered p u rsuant to this s ecti o n shall b e ser v ed on the employer or ot h er

p a y or eit h er by r egu l ar mail or by c ertif i ed mail, re t urn re c eipt request e d

. . . a n d

s hall be bindi n g on t he empl o yer or other p ayor t wo weeks a f ter m ailing or

electr o nic iss u an c e of such service. [Emphasis added.]

Also, Section 454

. 505.6. provides :

An order i ssued pu r suant to subse c tion 1 of this section sha l l be a contin u ing or d er

a nd shall rema i n in e ffect and be b i nding on any em p loyer o r ot h er payor upon

w h o m it is d irected unt i l a further ord e r of the director.... [Emphasis added.]5 Conclusion

We affirm

, with correction of the clerical error noted in the judgment , for $7,9 0 7.00.

____________________________ Mary K. Hoff, Judge

R obert G. Dowd, Jr., Presiding Judge and Roy L. Richter, Judge, concur.