Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
57 citation events (57 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: MCKENZIE R. ALLEN, Petitioner/Respondent v. BAILEY L. SEELY, 641 S.W.3d 236 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 469 Reviewing custody modification and relocation requirements24 citing cases“(1) is in the best interests of the child, (2) is made in good faith, and (3) if ordered, complies with the requirements of subsection 10.”8 citing courts quote it
  • MCKENZIE R. ALLEN, Petitioner/Respondent v. BAILEY L. SEELY, 641 S.W.3d 236 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021).published
    Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001) (internal citations omitted).
  • Henry v. Henry, 353 S.W.3d 368 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).published
    “(1) is in the best interests of the child, (2) is made in good faith, and (3) if ordered, complies with the requirements of subsection 10”
  • A.E.B. ex rel. L.D. v. T.B., 354 S.W.3d 167 (Mo. 2011).published
    “determine that the relocation: (1) is in the best interests of the child, (2) is made in good faith, and (3) if ordered, complies with the requirements of subsection [452.377.10]”
  • Ratteree v. Will, 258 S.W.3d 864 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).published 2 cites
    Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001).
  • Schlotman v. Costa, 193 S.W.3d 430 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).published 2 cites
    Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001); Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
  • Dunkle v. Dunkle, 158 S.W.3d 823 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).published
    See section 452.377.9-.10; Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001).
  • Fohey v. Knickerbocker, 130 S.W.3d 730 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).published
    Murphy, 536 S.W.2d at 32 ; Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001); Kell, 53 S.W.3d at 205.
  • Herigon v. Herigon, 121 S.W.3d 562 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).published
    “Michel’s four-part test is inconsistent with these statutory requirements and shall not be used in determining the child’s best interests”
  • Swisher v. Swisher, 124 S.W.3d 477 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).published
    Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001); Baxley, 91 S.W.3d at 200 .
  • Perryman v. Perryman, 117 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).published
    Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001).
Show 14 more citing cases
  • Gross v. Helm, 98 S.W.3d 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).published
    Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976); Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001).
  • Baxley v. Jarred, 91 S.W.3d 192 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).published
    After the 1998 amendment of § 452.377, the Missouri Supreme Court in Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001), held that “[i]n lieu of [the Michel test], section 452.377 now requires the court to determine that the relocation: (…
  • Dorman v. Dorman, 91 S.W.3d 167 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).published
    In Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001), the Supreme Court stated that § 452.377.9 requires the court to determine whether “the relocation: (1) is in the best interests of the child, (2) is made in good faith, and (3) if ord…
  • Haden v. Riou, 90 S.W.3d 538 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).published
    Page twenty-nine of the judgment states: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the provisions of § 452.377.1 regarding relocation of the residence of a child for all changes of residence after the one time move permitte…
  • Baker v. Welborn, 77 S.W.3d 711 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).published
    Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001).
  • DeFreece v. DeFreece, 69 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).published
    However, the Supreme Court overturned the rule in Sadler , holding that the four-factor test should no longer be used, pursuant to a 1998 amendment to § 452.377. 3 Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001); Romanetto v. Weirich,…
  • Siegfried v. Remaklus, 95 S.W.3d 107 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).published
    “(1) is in the best interests of the child, (2) is made in good faith, and (3) if ordered, complies with the requirements of subsection 10”
  • Weaver v. Kelling, 53 S.W.3d 610 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).published
    Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001).
  • Kell v. Kell, 53 S.W.3d 203 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).published 2 cites
    Stowe , at 469.
  • Romanetto v. Weirich, 48 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).published
    Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001).
  • Robinson v. Robinson, 338 S.W.3d 868 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).published
    See Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo. banc 2001).
  • Dixon v. Dixon, 62 S.W.3d 589 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).published
    See Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. banc 2001).
  • In re C.H. ex rel. C.H. v. C.W., 412 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).published
    See also Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468, 469 (Mo.banc 2001).
  • Cullison v. Thiessen, 51 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).published
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Laurie (Woods) STOWE, Respondent,
v.
Donald Ray SPENCE, Jr., Et Al., Appellants
SC 82940.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Apr 10, 2001.
Published opinion
41 S.W.3d 468
2001 Mo. LEXIS 37
2001 WL 348963
Richard L. Schnake, Neale & Newman, L.L.P., Springfield, for appellants., Kenneth C. McManaman, Cape Girar-deau, for respondent.
Price, Limbaugh, White, Holstein, Wolff, Benton, Stith.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published
[*469] PER CURIAM.

Laurie (Woods) Stowe (mother) and Donald Ray Spence, Jr., (father) are the parents of a child born in 1994. Paternity was established and custody was awarded in 1997. On May 20, 1998, father sought to modify the custody of the child. Judgment on the motion to modify was entered on July 28, 1999. Father and his parents appeal. Following opinion by the court of appeals, the case was transferred to this Court. Mo. Const, article V, section 10. Because the trial court failed to include in its judgment material required by statute, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Following the 1997 judgment awarding her primary custody of the child, mother decided to relocate to Michigan. Father then filed his motion to modify. While the matter was pending, the General Assembly adopted significant changes in section 452.377, [2] effective August 28, 1998. Subsections 9 and 10 provide:

9. The party seeking to relocate shall have the burden of proving that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and is in the best interest of the child.
10. If relocation is permitted:
(1) The court shall order contact with the nonrelocating party including custody or visitation and telephone access sufficient to assure that the child has frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with the nonrelocating party unless the child’s best interest warrants otherwise; and
(2) The court shall specify how the transportation costs will be allocated between the parties and adjust the child support, as appropriate, considering the costs of transportation.

In the judgment under review, the trial court approved the child’s relocation to Michigan, where mother has moved. It ordered a modification in custody, awarding mother and father joint physical custody. Periods of visitation were specified. The judgment, however, failed to specify how the transportation costs would be allocated, as required by section 452.377.10.(2).

In this court-tried case, the judgment will be affirmed 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). The judgment erroneously applies the law by failing to include the information specified by section 452.377.10.(2).

Prior to the 1998 amendment to section 452.377, the courts approved a relocation if it was in the best interests of the child. The child’s best interests were measured by a four-part test set out in Michel v. Michel, 834 S.W.2d 773, 777 (Mo.App.1992). See also Jones v. Jones, 903 S.W.2d 277, 282 (Mo.App.1995); Wild v. Holmes, 869 S.W.2d 917, 919 (Mo.App.1994). In lieu of this test, section 452.377 now requires the court to determine that the relocation: (1) is in the best interests of the child, (2) is made in good faith, and (3) if ordered, complies with the requirements of subsection 10. Michel’s four-part test is inconsistent with these statutory requirements and shall not be used in determining the child’s best interests. . On remand, the trial court is instructed to reconsider the case accordingly.

The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

[*470] PRICE, C.J., LIMBAUGH, WHITE, HOLSTEIN, WOLFF and BENTON, JJ., concur. LAURA DENVIR STITH, J., not participating.
2

. All statutory citations are to RSMo Supp. 1998.