Clark v. Clark
| Decision Date | 18 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 57787,57787 |
| Citation | 801 S.W.2d 95 |
| Parties | Alexander Bayard CLARK III, Respondent, v. Barbara Chapman CLARK, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Timothy Francis Noelker, Gerald J. Zafft, St. Louis, for respondent.
Norman C. Steimel, III, Bertram W. Tremayne, Jr., Clayton, for appellant.
Appellant Barbara Chapman Clark (wife) appeals certain aspects of a dissolution decree. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Husband and wife were married on December 23, 1967. Two sons were born of the marriage: Alexander Bayard IV (Alex) on June 29, 1971, and James Montgomery (Jamie) on January 25, 1976. The parties separated on or about April 20, 1987, and husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on October 7 of that year. Husband thereafter voluntarily provided wife with maintenance and child support amounting to $1,200 per month, and paid the mortgage payment, wife's therapy, insurance, and Alex's college tuition and expenses.
At the time of trial, husband was employed as an executive vice president of a bank, earning $114,700 per year. Wife was unemployed but had a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in teaching. During the marriage she was primarily a homemaker, although she briefly worked as an employment counselor, a tutor, and also had held a part-time job selling chocolates. At the time of trial she was enrolled in an interior design program. Wife planned to complete her studies in three years, after which she hoped to go to work, and stated she could earn $12,000 per year, increasing to between $20,000 to $30,000 if she performed well.
The parties acquired several assets during the course of their twenty-two year marriage, including a home valued at $300,000, three cars, several bank accounts, a deferred compensation account containing $14,178, retirement accounts totalling $74,042, a vested interest retirement plan of $7,992, two life insurance policies with a combined face value of $200,000, and numerous items of personal property. The home was encumbered by a $168,000 mortgage, and the parties had additional debt of $26,000.
The trial court entered its revised findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution on December 28, 1989. Wife was awarded primary physical and legal custody of Jamie, child support for Jamie of $960 per month, the home, a 1982 Audi, several items of personal property, and $7,500 in attorney's fees. She was also awarded rehabilitative maintenance as follows: (1) $300 per month maintenance and $1,914 per month as the mortgage payment for six months following the date of the decree or until the house is sold; (2) thereafter, $1,800 per month for one year; (3) $1,500 per month for the remainder of the three year period following the effective date of the decree. Husband was awarded visitation with Jamie as set forth in the decree, $13,000 from the sale of the home, a 1985 Peugot, his deferred compensation plan and retirement plans, five shares of stock, two life insurance policies, $10,000 to be paid by wife, and personal property as specified in the decree. The court declined to make a specific award as to Alex, except wife was awarded $200 per month child support during the periods Alex was at her home on breaks from college.
Wife appeals, contending the trial court erred in: (1) failing to fashion a permanent child support order for Alex because Section 452.340.5 RSMo 1986 (all further statutory references shall be to RSMo 1986) continues the child support obligation to age twenty-two for a child attending an institution of higher learning; (2) limiting her maintenance award to three years and structuring it to automatically decrease during that period, because there was insufficient evidence of any impending change or a reasonable expectation of change in her financial situation so as to warrant such a limitation; (3) failing to consider her tax consequences in selling the marital home and ordering her to pay husband $23,000, because the resulting distribution is unduly weighted in husband's favor and is therefore unjust; (4) awarding him the wardrobe cabinet and long glass/wood side table, because those items had been sold and were no longer subject to the trial court's jurisdiction, and; (5) its award of attorney's fees to her, because the award was the result of bias and prejudice on the part of the trial court towards her.
Our standard of review in this court-tried case is the oft-quoted standard enunciated in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The decree or judgment of the trial court will be sustained by the appellate court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, or unless it erroneously declares or applies the law.
We first address wife's second point on appeal, which contends the trial court erred in its award of rehabilitative maintenance, structured to last three years and decrease in intervals over that time period, because there was insufficient evidence of an impending change in her financial circumstances during that time.
At the time of trial, wife was pursuing a course of study in interior design. She testified she needed twenty-nine additional credit hours to obtain a certificate, which she believed she could complete in about three years. She also testified she was disabled due to pre-menstrual syndrome, but felt she would be able to work as an interior designer because she would be able to set her own hours. By way of deposition, her treating physician testified he felt wife's condition would not interfere with her ability to seek employment. Wife further testified her monthly expenses exceed her income by $637.95, which she covered by borrowing from her father.
A trial court has considerable discretion in determining maintenance awards. Siegenthaler v. Siegenthaler, 761 S.W.2d 262, 265 (Mo.App.1988) An award of limited maintenance should be affirmed if there is any rational basis to support it. Hutchins v. Hutchins, 687 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Mo.App.1985). Implicit in a limited maintenance award is the conclusion the recipient spouse will be self-supporting at the end of the time period. Pemberton v. Pemberton, 756 S.W.2d 660, 662 (Mo.App.1988). A limited maintenance award must be based on evidence showing either an impending change in the recipient spouse's financial condition, or a reasonable likelihood such change will occur. Hutchins, 687 S.W.2d at 706.
We find the three-year limitation of wife's maintenance award to be unsupported by substantial evidence. There was no substantive evidence wife would complete her certification program in three years. Her testimony at trial, when asked, "Maybe three years?" for her to complete the program, replied, "About that." When asked if she intended to work in the interior design field she said, "That would be my hope, yes." We conclude that this evidence is not sufficient to show an impending change in wife's finances, or a reasonable likelihood such change will occur. We are constrained to reverse the duration of the maintenance award. In light of this result, on remand the trial court should review the amount of the award and its duration, if any.
Wife's next point on appeal alleges the trial court erred in not making a permanent child support award as to Alex, because Section 452.340.5 continues the support obligation for him.
The parties stipulated that Alex was eighteen years old and a college freshman. Husband testified he was paying Alex's educational costs and intended to continue doing so. He further stated he has been paying $200 per month directly to Alex since Alex went to college, deducting that amount from wife's support payment. Husband wished to continue this arrangement, but wife testified this was not agreeable to her. The trial court found that Alex was sufficiently mature to decide where he wished to spend breaks from school, and therefore made no award of custody pertaining to him. The court further required husband to pay wife $200 per month child support for Alex during the months Alex is actually residing with her. The court did not order husband to continue paying Alex's college expenses or making the $200 monthly payment directly to Alex.
A trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rich v. Rich, 62932
...has a great deal of discretion in determining maintenance. In re Marriage of Klein, 837 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Mo.App.1992); Clark v. Clark, 801 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo.App.1990). Section 452.335 provides that the maintenance award must be just. The statute, however, "does not require the court to awar......
-
Marriage of Myers, In re, 18986
...have overturned limited duration maintenance awards. See In re Marriage of Thomas, 829 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Mo.App.1992); Clark v. Clark, 801 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo.App.1990); Goodding, 677 S.W.2d at The judgment is modified to increase the award of maintenance to appellant to $900 per month with no......
-
Marriage of Harris, In re, 19702
...self-supporting at the end of the time period." Hernandez v. Hernandez, 872 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Mo.App.W.D.1994) (quoting Clark v. Clark, 801 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo.App.E.D.1990)). Awards of limited duration should not be based on speculation as to the future condition of the parties. Jung v. Jung,......
-
Marriage of Gardner, In re, 19091
...v. Schneider, 824 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Mo.App.1992). See also In re Marriage of Lewis, 808 S.W.2d 919, 924 (Mo.App.1991); Clark v. Clark, 801 S.W.2d 95 (Mo.App.1990); In re Marriage of Ross, 772 S.W.2d 890 (Mo.App.1989). This point is For his fourth point appellant contends the trial court erre......
-
Section 15.33 Tax Consequences Incident to Property Transfers in Divorce
...in ordering a division of marital property. In re Marriage of Lewis, 808 S.W.2d 919, 924 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991); Clark v. Clark, 801 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990). The burden is on the party desiring the court to consider tax consequences to present evidence about them to the court. In r......