IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS. WESTERN DISTRICT MICHAEL MCKINZY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) % ) Ne. WDs1013, ) CARLETHA MCKINZY, ) ) Respondent. ) MOTION FOR REHARING EN BANC OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR ‘TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT Petitioner Michael McKinzy moves this Court pursuant to Rule 83.02 for rehearing en ‘ban, or inthe altemative to ransfer this matter tothe Missouri Supreme Cour. In support of his motion, Me. MeKinzy states as follows 1. Mz MeKinzy seeks declaratory judgment eli from avoid administrative Establishment Onder entered by Missour's Director of Child Suppor Enforcement (DCSE) on July 2,2002, 16 years ago. Mr, Mekiinzy hasbeen deprived of his, United States Constitutional 14% Amendment rights o dve process of law, proper service of process as presribed by Missour statutes and equal protection ofthe laws ofthe state of Missour right timely file a Petition for Judicial Review ofthe administrative Eseblishment child support Order in the Circuit Cour of Jackson County, Missouri, within 30 days of maling of sad order to Petitioner’ ast known address, RSMo § 454.470.5 and § 454.475.5 (2000), Page LotHis pettoned for declaratory judgment relies based in part upon two clams. Fist in violation MeDondald », Mabee, 243 US, 90 (1917), (DCSE) fabricated service on Petitioner as pesribed by Missouri strut section 476.4705 ofits Establishment Orde, thereby dep of sid order, ing Mr. MeKinzy of his ight to seek Judicial Review in Jackson County Circuit Court 2, Inthe altemative, Mr. MeKinzy moves to transfer tis mater to the Missouri Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 83.02 because i presents a question of general importance in thatthe panes analysis sets a precedent inthis istit that conics with Mabe MeDonald, 243 U.S. 90 (1917), and undermines Mabe's purpose to rte the fies, iesty tnd lb of judges Petitioner moves for rehearing en bane because the panel's opinion “chooses not t fellow a previous decision of an appelate court ofthis sate" Greene v. Greene, 368 S.W.24 426 (Mo. 1963); Rule 22.01; see also WD Local Rule XXXL 4 This case presents a question of general importance justifying transfer tothe Missouri Supreme Cour pursuant to Rule 83.02. In addition, tothe extent the Court, finds the panel's opinion is consistent with the law, transfer is requested for the purpose of examining existing law. Id Page 2 of 4‘SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF REHEARING EN BANC OR "TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT Even if Me McKinzy a “class of one” he is til ented to equal protection ofthe lave where “there is no ration basis for diference in treatment.” Willowbrook » Oleh, $28 {US. $62, $64 (2000) Further, the pane!'s misapplication of Greene presents a question of general importance because irases serious questions about the intepity of US. Constitutional due process in Missouri. Therefore, the Court should grant Petitioner's motion for rehearing en bane because the pane!'s opinion “chooses not to follow a previous decision ‘of an appellate court ofthis state.” Rule 22.01; see also WD Local Rule XXXL ‘Mr. MeKinzy's motion for ehearing en bane, including oral argument, rin the alternative, order this matter transferred tothe Missouri Supreme Court, Page SofWHEREFORE, for ths foregoing reasons, Petitioner prays this Court to grant rehearing, ‘en bane, including oral argument, or in the alternative to transfer this matter tothe Missouri re dela LT hogp tlarfaa i, eleobus Method £6 Me Sr 9606 W. 86" St. Apt.D (Overland Park, KS 6212 (13) 742-3621 michael ath CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ‘Thereby certify that on shis 26" June 2018, I mailed a copy of Petitioner's Motion For Rehearing En Bane or inthe Alternative for Transfer to the Supreme Court Respondent by Fist Class Mail postage prepaid tothe following addreses Carletha R. MeKinzy-Gaston 8904 Cambridge Apt. 3205 Kansas City, Missouri 64138 Machodl % Leh cfpupole WSeal Te tanay a cork Page dofIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Weetern District MICHAEL McKINZY, Appellant, v. wos1013 CARLETHA GASTON (McKINZY), Respondent. Feo: June 26, 2018 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY ‘THE HONORABLE PATRICK WILLIAM CAMPBELL, JUDGE BerORE Division One: Lisa WHITE HARDWICK, PRESIDING JUDGE, ‘Thomas H. NewTON AND EDWARD R. ARDINI, JR., JUDGES Onoen Pen CURIAM Michael MeKinzy {*Father") appeals from the circuit court's judgment ordering him to pay a combined arrearage of child support and maintenance to his former wife, Carletha Msi inzy ("Mother"). Father contends the court erred in denying his request to s2t aside the original administrative order for his child support obligation as vod due to lack of proper service of process in the administrative proceeding. For reasons explained herein, we affirn. AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b) AXadynent 8AIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District MICHAEL MeKINZY. Appellant, v wos1013 CARLETHA GASTON (WlcKINZY), Respondent. Fite: June 26, 2018 MEMORANDUM SUPPLEMENTING ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b) or 30.25(b) This memorandum is for the information of the parties and sets forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment, ‘THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FORMAL OPINION OF THIS COURT. IT 1S NOT UNIFORMLY AVAILABLE. IT SHALL NOT BE REPORTED, CITED OR ‘OTHERWISE USED IN UMRELATED CASES BEFORE THIS COURT OR ANY OTHER ‘COURT. IN THE EVENT OF THE FILING OF A MOTION TO REHEAR OR TRANSFER TO ‘THE SUPREME COURT, & COPY OF THIS MEMORANDUM SHALL BE ATTACHED TO ANY SUCH MOTION. Michael MeKinzy ("Father") appeals from the circuit court's judgment ordering, among other things, that he pey $76,232.52, which represents his combined child support and maintenance arrearage plus interest, to his former wite, Carletha McKinzy ("Mother"). Father contends the court erred in denying his request to set aside the original administrative order for his child support obligationa5 void due to lack of praper service of process in the administrative proceeding For reasons explained herein, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HisToRY’ Mother and Father were married on December 4, 1988, and had four children. They separated in January 2002. In July 2002, Mother and Father consented to the entry of an administrative child support order directing Father to pay $1185 per month in child support. In Novernber 2002, the court entered its judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage and ordering Father to pay child support ‘and maintenance. In its judgment, the court found that the monthly child support amount in the administrative order was the correct child support amount and ordered that the administrative order remain in full force and effect until further order of the court. In July 2007, an administrative hearing was held to determine the ‘emancipation of the parties’ three oldest children. Following the hearing, the hearing officer entered an order finding that the three oldest children were emancipated and modifying Father's monthly child support obligation for the remaining unemancipated child to $599, retroactive to February 15, 2007, The circuit court affirmed the administrative decision and, in February 2008, entered a formal judgment of modifization. On February 11, 2011, Mother and Father's ‘youngest child was legally emancipated The procedural History ofthis cas includes extensive tigation between the patias in both state tnd federel court on various ists. We Include only those proceedings that are necessary to the lspeston of Fathers point on p00. 2On September 2, 2015, Father filed a motion to modify and for declaratory judgment. In his motion, he asked the court to modify the maintenance award. He also asked the court to declare that each of his chitdren were actually emancipated 1a of their 18th birthdays instead of the dates found in the prior orders; that he does not owe any past-due child support or maintenance; and that any overpayment of child support should be credited against his maintenance obligation ‘Mother filed an answer and counter-mation to modify in which she requested, among other things, that the court assess and determine the amount of Father's child support ard maintenance arrearage, plus interest, and enter a judgment against him fo: that amount. Mother also requested that the court establish a payment schedule to facilitate Father's payment of the arrearage, (On the morning o' tial in January 2017, Father filed a motion for summary judgment in which he centended that the July 2002 administrative child support order was void. Specifically, he asserted that the Division of Child Support Enforcement failed to sond him a copy of the notice of financial responsibilty and the administrative child support order by certified mail at his last known mailing address, After hearing arguments and testimony {rom Father, the court denied Father's summary judgment motion and proceeded with the tal. Following the trial, the court entered its judgment in August 2017 granting Fathor’s request to terminate his maintenance obligation retroactive to February 1, 2017, and dismissing ot denying all of Father's requests for declaratory relief, The court found that Father awed @ combined child support and maintenance arrearage, 3plus interest, in the amount of $76,232.56, and the court ordered him to repay that amount at a rate of $600 per month until paid in full. Father appeals, ANaLysis In is sole point on appeal, Father contends the court erred in denying his summary judgment motion, in which he requested that the court sot aside the July 2002 administrative order as void. Father acgues that he was not properly served with process in the adminstrative proceeding ln denying Father's summary judgment motion, the court first found that the motion was doficiont becsuse Father requested summary judgment on an issue that was not pending before the court, as Father had nat asserted this issue in his pending motion to madity and for dectaratory judgment, Rule 74.04{a) allows a party to seek summary judgment only on "pending issues.” The court also found that Father's motion failed to meet virtualy ll of Rule 74.04(c)(1)'s requirements {for summary judgment motions.* We agree with the circuit court that Father's, noncompliance with Rule 74.04 alone warranted denial of his summary judgment motion. See Hanna v. Darr, 184 S.W.36 2, 5 (Ma. App. 2004), * in particular, the court found thet Father failed to: {Summary state the legal basi fr tha motion; attach a statemant of Lncontroverted materia acts stating wth particularity in separately numbered paragraphs each materi fat as to which movant claims there fs no genuine issue; Specifically reference the pleadings, ciscovery, exhibits, or affidavits that ‘emonetrate the lack oa genuine save as 0 Suen facia: provide [Mother with an tlectronic copy of the statement of uncontoverted matarl facts na commonly ‘used modi, such as 9 eisketle, CD-ROM or e-mail attachment, ina format that ‘can be read by most cemmonly used word processing programs, such as Word for Windows o WordPerfct 8.x 0 higher; and, to fie a Separate legal memorandum ‘xpiaining why summay judgment should be granted 4Additionally, the circuit court found that the record conclusively refuted Fother’s claim that he was not properly served, On June 28, 2002, Father signed ‘an entty of appearance in the administrative proceeding, stating: “l, MICHAEL. EUGENE MCKINZY, RESPONDENT herein, acknowledge receipt of the NOTICE & FINDING OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY] issued by the Division of Child Support Enforcement on June 26, 2002, and hereby enter my appearance in the above: entitled action." Moreover, the administrative order noted that Father and Mother were personally served with the Notice and Finding of Financial Responsibility. The order further provided: "THIS ORDER IS MADE BY CONSENT. By my signature below, | agree to this order and acknowledge service of a true copy of the Notice and Finding of Financial Responsibility.’ Father signed the consent order under oath on June 28, 2002. The record conclusively refutes Father's claim that he was not properly served with process in the administrative proceeding.” The court did not err in denying his motion for summary judgment. Point denied. Conciusion The judgment is affirmed. > Fathers signature on the censent order also conclusively refutes his elaim, which he raises ony in his argument and notin his point relied on in vottion of Rule 84.04(a), znat he didnot receive notice ofthe order because the order wos malled to an alagedy incorrect addross (his parents! ‘tkess) instead of his last known mating address. 5