OTT LAW

Juliet E. Johnson, Appellant, v. Leroy Johnson, Respondent.

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 Western District Case Style: Juliet E. Johnson, Appellant, v. Leroy Johnson, Respondent. Case Number: 54057 Handdown Date: 03/31/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Christine Sill-Rogers Counsel for Appellant: Susan West Noland Counsel for Respondent: Patrick Campbell Opinion Summary: Former wife appeals the circuit court's decision to not assess accrued interest on child support payments more than ten years delinquent owed by her former husband. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Division II holds: Interest accrues on child support payments delinquent more than ten years where the delinquent child support payments were revived by payments made on the record. Citation: Opinion Author: Paul M. Spinden, Judge Opinion Vote: Breckenridge, P.J., and Lowenstein, J., concur. Opinion: Juliet E. Gumby, formerly Juliet E. Johnson,(FN1) appeals the circuit court's judgment because it did not award accrued interest on child support payments which were more than 10 years delinquent. Her former husband, Leroy Johnson, contends that the circuit court correctly presumed the interest to be paid. We reverse the circuit court's judgment and remand. This action originated when Johnson asked the circuit court to declare the couple's two children emancipated and

that he was no longer obligated to pay child support. Gumby filed an answer and cross-motion for modification of child support. The couple stipulated that Johnson owed $20,726.45 in unpaid child support dating back to 1976 and that he owed $33,470.89 in interest for amounts unpaid from December 3, 1976, to October 1, 1986, and $36,687.66 in interest for unpaid amounts from October 1, 1986, to September 30, 1996. The only issue contested by Johnson was whether Gumby should be barred from claiming interest for child support owed before October 1, 1986. The circuit court ruled in Johnson's favor on that issue and ordered him to pay interest only for amounts owed since October 1, 1986. Gumby contends on appeal that the circuit court's not ordering Johnson to pay interest for amounts owed before October 1, 1986, was reversible error because the circuit court was obligated by law to order the interest. She argues that statutory interest automatically accrued because Johnson revived the judgment ordering child support by making payments on the record. Johnson admits that his payments revived the circuit court's judgment but contends that they did not revive his obligation to pay interest. Section 454.520(FN2) governs the accrual of interest on delinquent child support payments:

  1. All delinquent child support and maintenance payments which have accrued based upon

judgments or orders of courts of this state entered prior to September 29, 1979, shall draw interest at the rate of six percent per annum through September 28, 1979; at the rate of nine percent per annum from September 29, 1979, through August 31, 1982; and thereafter at the rate of one percent per month. . . . .

  1. The interest imposed under [subsection 1] of this section shall be simple interest. Interest

shall accrue at the close of the business day on the last day of each month and shall be calculated by multiplying the total arrearage existing at the end of the day, less the amount of that month's installments, by the applicable rate of interest. The total amount of interest collectible is the sum of the interest which has accrued on the last day of each month following the first delinquent payment. This interest computation method shall apply to all support and maintenance orders, regardless of the frequency of the installments required by the court. . . . The interest imposed under this section shall automatically accrue and attach to the underlying support or maintenance judgment or order,(FN3) and may be collected together with the arrearage, except that no payment or collection shall be construed to be interest until the entire support arrearage has been satisfied. Such interest shall be considered support or maintenance for the purposes of exemptions, restrictions on amounts which may be recovered by garnishment, and nondischargeability in bankruptcy. Section 516.350 governs revival of judgments:

  1. Every judgment, order or decree of any court of record of the United States, or of this or any

other state, territory or country, except for any judgment, order, or decree awarding child support or maintenance which mandates the making of payments over a period of time, shall be presumed to be paid and satisfied after the expiration of ten years from the date of the original rendition thereof, or if the same has been revived upon personal service duly had upon the defendant or defendants therein, then after ten years from and after such revival, or in case a payment has been made on such judgment, order or decree, and duly entered upon the record thereof, after the expiration of ten years from the last payment so made, and after the expiration of ten years from the date of the original rendition or revival upon personal service, or from the date of the last payment, such judgment shall be conclusively presumed to be paid, and no execution, order or process shall issue thereon, nor shall any suit be brought, had or maintained thereon for any purpose whatever.

  1. In any judgment, order, or decree awarding child support or

maintenance, each periodic payment shall be presumed paid and satisfied after the expiration of ten years from the date that periodic payment is due, unless the judgment has been otherwise revived as set out in subsection 1 of this section. This subsection shall take effect as to all such judgments, orders, or decrees which have not been presumed paid under subsection 1 of this section as of August 31, 1982. Section 454.520.4's provision that interest "shall automatically accrue and attach to the underlying support or maintenance judgment or order" makes assessment of interest for unpaid child support mandatory. Baird v. Baird, 843 S.W.2d 388, 390 (Mo. App. 1992). Although the issue of whether interest could be presumed paid was not directly raised, this court has affirmed orders requiring interest on delinquent child support or maintenance obligations originally entered more than 10 years before the order. Spangler v. Spangler, 831 S.W.2d 256, 260 (Mo. App. 1992); Burton v. Everett, 845 S.W.2d 710, 716 (Mo. App. 1993); Lammers v. Lammers, 884 S.W.2d 389, 394 (Mo. App. 1994). Johnson has not directed us to any cases-nor have we found any-supporting his contention that interest accrued on delinquent child support obligations is presumed paid under section 516.350 when the underlying support obligation has been revived by payments on the record. The circuit court erred by not awarding interest on the delinquent child support payments for which Johnson was obligated before October 1, 1986. We remand for the circuit court to modify its judgment. Footnotes: FN1.After divorce proceedings began, Juliet Johnson changed her last name to Gumby. The record does not indicate the reason for the change. FN2.All citations to statutes refer to the 1994 Revised Statutes. FN3.We added the emphasis. 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