Cook v. Cook
| Decision Date | 18 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 49950,49950 |
| Citation | 706 S.W.2d 606 |
| Parties | Rosalie COOK, Respondent, v. Charles W. COOK, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles F. James, Law Offices of James & Swann, Wentzville, for appellant.
Wayne T. Schoeneberg, Law Offices of Knight & Schoeneberg, St. Charles, for respondent.
Husband Charles W. Cook has appealed from the custody and monetary provisions of the dissolution decree favorable to wife Rosalie Cook.
After fifteen years of marriage the husband left the marital home and the parties' thirteen-year-old daughter. In the now challenged decree the trial court ruled the wife was to have primary custody of their thirteen-year-old daughter with the father having twice-monthly visitation in his mother's home; the father was ordered to pay mother $40 a week for child support.
Husband challenges the decree on three grounds: No evidence unlimited child visitation would endanger the daughter's health or emotional development; the evidence failed to justify awarding the wife 86% of the marital property and ordering husband to pay 65% of the marital debts; erred in awarding the wife $1,000 toward her attorney's fees. These in turn.
As to custody the father relies on the daughter's declared wish to visit her father often and he contends the custody award was improperly based on his marital misconduct. In the trial court were husband's admission: At work he and his employees often smoked marijuana; during the marriage he regularly and repeatedly had sex with at least three other women; that he sold marijuana to others; that he often smoked marijuana when his daughter was present. Further, immediately on separation husband began living with a 23-year-old tavern entertainer in her trailer home; with the daughter present, they smoked marijuana while watching movies of naked women; this made the daughter uncomfortable.
On appeal, dissolution decrees are not reviewable de novo when, as here, there is substantial supporting evidence. Budzinski v. Budzinski, 632 S.W.2d 527 (Mo.App.1982); In re Marriage of Powers, 527 S.W.2d 949 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1975). Since the evidence showed the child was exposed to unwholesome conditions we deny husband's point here that unlimited child visitation with him would be harmless to the child.
By his second point husband claims error in awarding the wife 86% of the marital property and charging him with 65% of marital debts.
Under Sect. 452.330, when dividing marital property the trial court shall divide it in such proportion as the court deems just after considering such factors as the contribution of a wife as a homemaker and custodian of a child, and also the husband's marital misconduct.
The trial court ordered wife to pay the $14,000 home mortgage and $1,730 in other debts. It ordered husband to pay $17,000 due the Internal Revenue Service, $11,239 business debts and $1,450 as half of an auto debt. Husband concedes the cited statute does not require an equal division where one spouse, as here, has been guilty of misconduct. Hogan v. Hogan, 651 S.W.2d 585 [5, 6] (Mo.App.1983).
The evidence showed although husband was currently unemployed he admitted he could earn $20,000 a year....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. May, s. 57220
...per se abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Dardick, supra, at 689; Buchheit v. Buchheit, 768 S.W.2d 641, 642 (Mo.App.1989); Cook v. Cook, 706 S.W.2d 606, 607-08 (Mo.App.1986). Describing the award in terms of a percentage of marital assets is not meaningful unless considered together with the n......
-
Hayes v. Hayes, 16261
...assets than the husband is not per se an abuse of discretion. Buchheit v. Buchheit, 768 S.W.2d 641, 642 (Mo.App.1989); Cook v. Cook, 706 S.W.2d 606, 607-608 (Mo.App.1986). Appellate courts of this state have upheld divisions of marital property of 4 percent to 9.5 percent to wife, balance t......
-
Cooper v. Cooper
...is discretionary. We review only for an abuse of discretion. Russell v. Russell, 740 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Mo.App.1987); Cook v. Cook, 706 S.W.2d 606, 608 (Mo.App.1986). A court must, however, consider all relevant factors when awarding attorney's fees, including the financial resources of both ......
-
Deck v. Deck
...divided. See, e.g., Klenke v. Klenke, 742 S.W.2d 621 (Mo.App.1987) (court awarded wife 70 percent of marital assets); Cook v. Cook, 706 S.W.2d 606 (Mo.App.1986) (court awarded wife 86 percent of marital Given the circumstances of this case, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion i......
-
§ 13.02 Division of Property at Divorce
...(Fla. App. 1984) (approximately 80% to husband). Missouri: Mika v. Mika, 728 S.W.2d 280 (Mo. App. 1987) (16% to husband); Cook v. Cook, 706 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. App. 1986) (14°% to husband). [333] See Glendon, "Family Law Reform in the 1980's," 44 La. L. Rev. 1553, 1556 (1984).[334] See the conc......