OTT LAW

Angela Brooke Metz by Jan Metz, Next Friend, and Jan Metz, individually, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Richard Deichmann, Defendant/Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Angela Brooke Metz by Jan Metz, Next Friend, and Jan Metz, individually, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Richard Deichmann, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: 74001 Handdown Date: 12/15/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Martin Schiff, Jr. Counsel for Appellant: Linda L. Roediger Counsel for Respondent: Angela Metz and Jan Metz, Pro Se Opinion Summary: Richard Deichmann (Father) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Jan Metz (Mother) denying Father's motion to modify child support. Father contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify child support because his social security disability benefits should be credited toward the child support amount. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Division Five holds: The case of Weaks v. Weaks, 821 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1991), is applicable in that social security disability benefits can be credited toward a child support obligation. The trial court erroneously declared the law in siding with the dissent in Weaks. The case is remanded for further proceedings to consider all relevant factors to determine whether to modify child support including a possible credit for social security disability benefits. Citation: Opinion Author: Robert G. Dowd, Jr., Chief Judge Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Karohl, J., and Crist, Sr.J., concur. Opinion: Richard Deichmann (Father) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Jan Metz (Mother) denying Father's motion to modify child support. Father contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify child support

because his social security disability benefits should be credited toward the child support amount. We reverse and remand. On January 9, 1987, Mother and Father entered into a Consent Agreement awarding care and custody of their minor child to Mother and required Father to pay the sum of $23 per week as child support. Subsequently, Father suffered head injuries and was declared totally disabled. Father is unable to work and receives social security disability as his sole income. Mother, on behalf of the minor child, receives social security benefits in the amount of $488 a month derived through Father's account. Father filed a motion to modify child support based on substantial and continuing changed circumstances in accordance with Section 452.370, RSMo 1994. Father argued his social security disability benefits should be credited toward his child support obligation. Thus, the excess in social security benefits Mother receives on behalf of the minor child would negate his child support obligation. The trial court ruled against Father's motion and entered judgment for Mother. This appeal follows. We will affirm the judgment of the trial court 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. Hopkins v. Hopkins, 859 S.W.2d 205, 206 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Modification of child support depends upon certain findings. Section 452.370, RSMo 1994, provides that: "... [T]he provisions of any decree respecting maintenance or support may be modified only upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable." The statute clearly requires a court to consider all financial resources of both parties in determining whether a substantial change in circumstance has occurred. See Section 452.370.1. Father contends his disability is a substantial and continuing change in circumstance and therefore is entitled to a modification of child support. Father argues the social security disability benefits can be credited toward his child support obligation. Father cites Weaks v. Weaks, 821 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1991), as controlling. We agree. In Weaks, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that a parent charged with a support obligation is entitled to a credit toward that obligation for social security disability benefits derived through that parent's account. Id. at 505-506. The Court found that the purpose of social security disability payments is to replace income lost due to the recipient's inability to work. Id. at 506. The Court held it is inequitable to withhold a credit against the child support obligation. Id. The benefits Mother received on behalf of the minor child were a substitute for Father's income and therefore can be credited to satisfy his support obligation. The trial court sided with the dissent in Weaks and erroneously declared the

law. Therefore, the trial court's order denying Father's motion to modify child support is reversed. However, the receipt of social security benefits is only one circumstance to consider in deciding whether to modify the child support. Weaks, 821 S.W.2d at 506. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Related Opinions

Ronald Wuebbeling, Respondent, vs. Jill Clark, f/k/a Jill Wuebbeling, Appellant.(2016)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 9, 2106#ED103501

affirmed
family-lawmajority5,654 words

L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's renewal of a full order of protection against Father, which was made effective for his lifetime. The order prohibits Father from communicating with or coming within 100 feet of Mother, except for communications concerning their shared child, based on findings that Father engaged in stalking, harassment, and coercion that posed a serious danger to Mother's physical or mental health.

family-lawper_curiam4,882 words

In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485

affirmed

Wife appealed the trial court's dissolution judgment, challenging the court's failure to provide a remedy after independent investigation of facts, the use of normalized income to determine husband's maintenance obligation, and the finding that husband lacked ability to pay maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.

family-lawmajority8,056 words

In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101121

reversed

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of third-party visitation to Smith under section 452.375.5(5)(a), holding that this statute does not create an independent cause of action for third-party visitation when custody is not at issue. The court determined that Smith lacked standing to seek visitation rights after Martinez was granted full parental rights through adoption.

family-lawper_curiam3,296 words

M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, rejecting Father's six points of error regarding the Form 14 calculations, denial of Line 11 credit despite equal visitation time, disproportionate attorney's and GAL fees, and exclusion of testimony on equitable abatement. The appellate court found that Father failed to meet the required analytical standards for challenging the judgment and that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Line 11 credit and ruling against equitable abatement.

family-lawmajority3,425 words