Preview:

No. 100,780 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF: SHANNON M. WILSON, Appellee, AND BRUCE A. WILSON, Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. Appellate courts review an award of child support for abuse of discretion. The district court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes a legal error.

2. Kansas divorce statutes authorize an award of child support until the child reaches age 18 or, if still in high school, until June 30 of the school year in which the child turns 18. No greater duty exists under the common law: a parent's common-law duty to support a child ends at majority. Thus, absent a parent's written agreement, the parent cannot be ordered to provide support after the child reaches 18 and has graduated from high school.
1

3. A district court may not order that child-support payments be placed into a trust fund that may be used by the child after the parent's duty to support the child has ended.

4. Appellate courts review a sanction order for abuse of discretion. The district court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes a legal error. If no legal error is made, an appellate court will uphold an order of sanctions if any reasonable person would agree with the district court's order, while giving consideration to the restrained approach that a court should take when entering sanctions.

5. When a party to litigation is required to disclose information to the court, the court may sanction that party if it omits facts that would be necessary to make that party's other statements not misleading to the court.

Appeal from Johnson District Court; THOMAS E. FOSTER, judge. Opinion filed January 29, 2010. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

2

Frederick K. Starrett and Matthew K. Corbin, of Lathrop & Gage LLP, of Overland Park, for appellant.

Robert S. Caldwell, of Caldwell & Moll, L.C., of Overland Park, for appellee.

Before McANANY, P.J., ELLIOTT and LEBEN, JJ.

LEBEN, J.: Bruce Wilson appeals two orders the district court made in Bruce's divorce from his wife, Shannon. First, he argues that the district court's child-support order went beyond the court's authority because $3,500 per month goes into a trust account that could be used by the parties' child after he reaches majority. We agree: Kansas law doesn't require a parent to provide support to a child after majority, and the district court's order effectively does so. Second, Bruce argues that the district court wrongly sanctioned him for his misleading and evasive responses during trial and in his required financial affidavit. We disagree: the district court has the inherent power to sanction a divorce litigant who provides misleading information in financial information that the law required to be disclosed as part of that divorce action.

3

I.

The District Court's Child-Support Order Is Beyond the Court's Authority Because It Provides Post-Majority Support.

The district court ordered Bruce to pay $6,000 per month in child support for the benefit of the parties' only child, Finley, who was almost 5 years old when the case was tried. The district court ordered that Shannon place $3,500 of that amount each month into a trust fund for Finley's special needs or future education. The written journal entry setting out the judge's orders provided that Shannon place the $3,500 "into a trust account for the benefit of the Child or, if agreed by both parties, in the Child's existing 529 Educational Account." The journal entry also provided that child support would cease when Finley turned 18.

We review the district court's award of child support for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Winsky, 42 Kan. App. 2d 69, Syl.

Download In re Marriage of Wilson.pdf

Kansas Law