Nannette E. Clark, Respondent, vs. Victor L. Clark, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR NANNETTE E. CLARK, Respondent, vs. VICTOR L. CLARK, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED97789 Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County Honorable Thomas J. Frawley Filed: October 30, 2012 The father, Victor Clark, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County ordering him to pay the mother, Nannette Clark, now Nannette Lane, the sum of $37,104.54 as amounts due for child support, college expenses, and medical expenses for the parties children, amounts due pursuant to a prior judgment, and attorney s fees. The father raises two points on appeal. We summarily deny the father s Point I and the first of his subpoints contained in Point II. On these claims, we find that an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). We have provided the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The father s remaining subpoint contained in Point II, however, requires our consideration in a published opinion because of a mathematical error. A prior judgment required the father to pay eighty percent of the actual college costs for the parties children. College costs included room and board, up to a maximum amount equal to eighty percent of the then-present cost at the University of Missouri at Columbia for dormitory costs for room and board. The mother filed a motion to determine amounts due. After an exhaustive process lasting nearly three years, the trial court entered its 41page second amended order and judgment, ordering the father to pay the mother a total of $37,104.54. The father appeals. In Point II, the father challenges the trial court s order that he pay $20,806.83 for rent, utility, and food costs for three of the parties children. In his second subpoint contained in Point II, the father complains that he was ordered to pay 100 percent of these expenses instead of the eighty percent required by the earlier judgment. We will affirm the 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. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976); Atchley v. Atchley, 334 S.W.3d 709, 712 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). The mother identified costs for rent, food, and utilities for three of the children as part of the amount the father owed for each child s respective college expenses. The trial court calculated these costs as a separate category totaling $20,806.83. Our review of the evidence reveals that the trial court inadvertently miscalculated these expenses. In its 41-page judgment, the trial court miscalculated this one expense category, and assessed 100 percent of the costs for rent, utilities, and food to the father. The trial court derived its figures from the mother s evidence of gross college expenses paid for each child, each semester, before the mother s exhibit set forth her calculation of the father s obligation for eighty percent of the expenses. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
