Corey v. Corey, 50344
| Decision Date | 10 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 50344,50344 |
| Citation | 712 S.W.2d 708 |
| Parties | Barbara Ann COREY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas M. COREY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Jerry L. Suddarth, O'Fallon, for defendant-appellant.
Claude C. Knight, St. Charles, for plaintiff-respondent.
Husband appeals provisions in dissolution decree for maintenance, division of marital property and failure to specify that he is entitled to claim his two children as dependents under state and federal income tax laws.
Husband and wife were married on March 21, 1971. They produced two children, a daughter born October 8, 1974, and a son born October 1, 1977. Parties separated in February 1984 after husband told wife he was having an affair and wanted a divorce.
Wife has a high school diploma and remained at home throughout the marriage. She had worked as a secretary for a few years before marriage and only resumed working after husband moved from the family home. As of trial, she was employed as a secretary and earned $12,000 annually with take-home pay of $381.91 twice monthly.
Husband is employed at a publishing company and testified that his net monthly salary is $2,080 less $150 for contributions to a savings plan. His income and expense statement showed a net monthly pay of $2,122.80 and monthly expenses of $1,502.71. His expenses had reduced by $174.04 per month before trial because he had finished making truck payments.
The dissolution decree awarded the children, ages eight and eleven, to wife and ordered child support of "$150 per child bi-monthly each payment being due on the 15th and last day of each month" and the sum of $185 bi-monthly for periodic maintenance. The decree also divided marital property, after assigning values for each item, and provided for debts and health insurance on the children.
On appeal husband claims the trial court erred in awarding excessive and periodic maintenance, in awarding a disproportionate amount of marital property to wife, and in failing to order that he had the right to claim the children as his dependents under income tax laws. We address husband's contentions in order and review under the standard of Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
The court awarded wife periodic maintenance. Husband maintains the award is excessive and the court erred in not limiting the duration of the award because wife's health, age and present employment indicate she can become self-supporting in the future. We review this claim of error only to determine if the trial court has abused its discretion. Davis v. Davis, 693 S.W.2d 879, 882 (Mo.App.1985).
We reject husband's claim of error in the award of periodic maintenance for several reasons. First, wife is the custodian of children. § 452.335.1(2) RSMo 1978. Second, a limited maintenance award must be supported by "evidence of some impending change in the financial conditions of the parties or at least some reasonable expectation that such a change will occur." In re Marriage of Powers, 527 S.W.2d 949, 956 (Mo.App.1975), quoted in, Hutchins v. Hutchins, 687 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Mo.App.1985).
In the present case, wife has income from her salary and dividend or interest income available to her from an investment of her award of marital property. The income producing sum was found to be $20,463. The proceeds from this sum would not be substantial and wife is not required to consume her assets before being entitled to maintenance. Miller v. Miller, 635 S.W.2d 350, 352 (Mo.App.1982). Wife stayed home for thirteen years to raise the children and lacks sufficient skills to supply herself adequately, while the award is not clearly beyond husband's ability to pay. Ingebritson v. Ingebritson, 677 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Mo.App.1984). With regard to husband's ability to pay, the decree is vague and could be read to order either $185 per month payable bi-monthly or $370 per month payable in equal bi-monthly payments. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monterey County v. Cornejo
...502, 540 N.E.2d 187; Fudenberg v. Molstad (Minn.Ct.App.1986) 390 N.W.2d 19; Nichols v. Tedder (Miss.1989) 547 So.2d 766; Corey v. Corey (Mo.Ct.App.1986) 712 S.W.2d 708; In re Marriage of Milesnick (1988) 235 Mont. 88, 765 P.2d 751; Babka v. Babka (1990) 234 Neb. 674, 452 N.W.2d 286; Gwodz v......
-
Piso v. Piso
...of [that state's] courts to provide for the minor children of divorce. Macias, 968 P.2d at 817; see also, Corey v. Corey, 712 S.W.2d 708, 711 (Mo.Ct.App. 1986); Gwodz v. Gwodz, 234 N.J.Super. 56, 560 A.2d 85, 87 (1989); Hart v. Hart, 774 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Ky.Ct.App.1989); In re Marriage of L......
-
Serrano v. Serrano
...77 Md.App. 750, 759-61, 551 A.2d 935 (1989); Bailey v. Bailey, 27 Mass.App. 502, 504-505, 540 N.E.2d 187 (1989); Corey v. Corey, 712 S.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Mo.App.1986); In re Marriage of Milesnick, 765 P.2d 751, 753-54 (Mont.1988); Gwodz v. Gwodz, 234 N.J.Super. 56, 60-61, 560 A.2d 85 (App.Di......
-
Miller v. Miller
...to the core responsibility of [that state's] courts to provide for the minor children of divorce. Macias, 968 P.2d at 817; see also Corey, 712 S.W.2d at 711; Gwodz, 560 A.2d at 87; Hart, 774 S.W.2d at 457; Larsen, 805 P.2d at 1197; Motes, 786 P.2d at 236. We further conclude that, where a c......
-
Child-Related Exemptions, Credits and Deductions
...; Nichols v. Tedder , 547 So. 2d 766 (Miss. 1989); In re Marriage of Milesnick , 235 Mont. 88, 765 P.2d 751 (1988); Corey v. Corey , 712 S.W.2d 708 (Mo. App. 1986); Babka v. Babka , 234 Neb. 674, 452 N.W.2d 286 (1990); Sertic v. Sertic , 901 P.2d 148 (Nev. 1995); Gwodz v. Gwodz , 234 N.J. S......