Sherman v. Sherman
Missouri Court of Appeals
160 S.W.3d 381 (2004)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
During Francis E. Sherman and Janet A. Sherman’s divorce proceedings, the court considered the amount of child-support payments Francis should make to Janet. In doing so, the court looked at Francis’s past income both from his regular employment with a health system as well as a family business, FNJ, started by Francis and Janet during their marriage that Francis was awarded in the divorce. Although FNJ earned more than $52,000 in its first year of operation, for several years before their dissolution proceedings began, FNJ’s income had been declining significantly. When FNJ lost its last contract, Francis decided not to rebid the contract or to seek other contracts in part because he was tired of the business but also because of costs and competition, and he testified that FNJ was no longer a going concern. No evidence was submitted that other contracts were available. In the last three years of its operation, FNJ earned approximately $26,000, $9,000, and $9,000. Janet testified that there was some evidence FNJ was still paying Francis an income. The lower court determined that Francis had the potential to earn $1,000 a month from FNJ and then awarded Janet child support on that basis. Francis appealed, arguing that the court did not have evidence on which to impute that level of income from FNJ.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Howard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
