Hahn v. Hahn

• Decision Date: 17 November 1987
• Docket Number: No. 52508,52508
• Citation: Hahn v. Hahn, 739 S.W.2d 763 (Mo. App. 1987)
• Parties: Rosemary HAHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert Eugene HAHN, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 763

739 S.W.2d 763

Rosemary HAHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Robert Eugene HAHN, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 52508.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Two.

Nov. 17, 1987.

Eric Charles Harris, Flat River, for plaintiff-appellant.

Maurice B. Graham, Fredericktown, for defendant-respondent.

DOWD, Judge.

Plaintiff, Rosemary Hahn, appeals from the order entered by the trial court denying her request for permanent maintenance and failing to award her a greater share of the marital property.We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The parties were married on August 12, 1951 in Flat River, Missouri.All four daughters of the marriage are now emancipated.The testimony indicates that both parties have been continuously employed throughout their thirty-five year marriage.Plaintiff, a fifty-six year old woman, received her Bachelor's degree in business education from Central Methodist College in 1951 and completed her Masters in education from Southern Illinois University in 1969.Plaintiff is presently employed as a librarian and her contract for the school year of 1986-87 provides for a gross salary of $23,805.00.She is a certified teacher by the State of Missouri and is tenured in her present position.Defendant, a fifty-seven year old man, received his Bachelor's degree in education from Southeast Missouri State University in 1951 and has completed thirty graduate hours at Southern Illinois University.He is employed in a managerial position with the United States Postal Service and his annual salary is $58,000.00.

The trial court awarded plaintiff 53% and defendant 47% of the marital property.Included in the $320,036.52 sum of marital property is both parties' retirement benefits.The trial court awarded plaintiff $3,000.00 in attorneys' fees and ordered defendant to pay all marital debts and court costs.

Our scope of review in a court tried case is to uphold the judgment of the trial court if the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not against the weight of the evidence.Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32(Mo. banc 1976).Furthermore, the trial court's findings must not erroneously declare the law or apply the law.Id.

Plaintiff in her first point on appeal contends the trial court abused its discretion and erred by denying her permanent maintenance.Plaintiff argues she lacks sufficient property, income and marital property to provide for her reasonable needs and to maintain herself in her accustomed standard of living.

Our review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion.Hogan v. Hogan, 651 S.W.2d 585, 587(Mo.App.1983).According to § 452.335.1, RSMo 1986, maintenance may be awarded if a spouse lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to her, to provide for her reasonable needs and is unable to support herself through appropriate employment.Moseley v. Moseley, 642 S.W.2d 953, 958(Mo.App.1982).

As previously stated, plaintiff is a certified, tenured teacher in the Central School District in Flat River, Missouri.All of her daughters are emancipated, and so she supports no dependants.She is in reasonably good health.Plaintiff is debt free and her contract for the 1986-87 school year provides for a gross salary of $23,805.00.In addition to her salary, plaintiff owns nonmarital property in the form of a joint money market account valued at $11,000.00.

The trial court awarded plaintiff 53% of the marital property.Part of the marital property awarded to her was the marital home free from debt, the household furnishings and appliances, a 1982 automobile, two IRA Retirement Funds valued at $10,000.00 and $8,000.00, and her Missouri Teachers Retirement Plan.Excluding the retirement benefits of the parties, plaintiff received 83% of the marital property.Plaintiff, therefore, possesses sufficient property, including the marital property apportioned to her, to provide for her reasonable needs.Although plaintiff argues the trial court erred by failing to apportion to her enough...