Hughes v. Hughes
| Decision Date | 13 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 103535,ED 103535 |
| Citation | 505 S.W.3d 458 |
| Parties | Michael Paul HUGHES, Appellant, v. Jillisa Colleen HUGHES, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Paul J. Puricelli, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Gail S. Zarosa, Clayton, MO, Daniel R. Schramm, Chesterfield, MO, for Respondent.
Michael Paul Hughes ("Husband") appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing and denying his motion to modify a maintenance obligation to Jillisa Colleen Hughes ("Wife"). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Husband and Wife were married on June 20, 1998. After approximately seven years of marriage, Husband petitioned the court to dissolve the marriage and, on June 30, 2006, the parties were divorced, pursuant to a dissolution judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. There were no children born of the marriage.
To facilitate and effectuate their divorce, Husband and Wife entered into a Marital Settlement and Separation Agreement ("MSA") which, among other things, set forth the terms of maintenance to be awarded to Wife. The MSA and its terms were approved and incorporated into the trial court's "Dissolution Decree." Together, the Dissolution Decree and the MSA embody the "Dissolution Judgment."
Pursuant to the MSA, Husband was ordered, inter alia, to pay Wife $2,500.00 per month in maintenance. In addition, Husband was also ordered to pay Wife $2,000.00 every quarter in maintenance. In relevant part, the MSA stated the following:
(emphasis added).
As previously stated, the trial court incorporated the MSA into its Dissolution Decree. Regarding maintenance, the Dissolution Decree ordered:
(strike-out in original).
Thereafter, in 2009, Husband filed a motion to modify the maintenance terms set forth in the Dissolution Judgment. Husband and Wife eventually entered into a consent modification judgment ("Prior Consent Modification"), which was approved and incorporated by the trial court. Under its terms, Husband's maintenance obligation was reduced and he was ordered, inter alia , to pay Wife $1,953.34 per month. For all other purposes of this appeal, the Prior Consent Modification furnished no other adjustments, amendments, or modifications to the Dissolution Judgment. The Prior Consent Modification provided no analysis on the question of modifiability of the maintenance obligation.
In 2010, Wife began a romantic relationship with David Lewis ("Lewis"). In 2012, Wife moved into Lewis' house in Chesterfield, where she has since continuously resided. There is no dispute Wife and Lewis are currently, and desire to remain, in a committed, romantic relationship, yet there exists no evidence Wife and Lewis intend to marry.
Relying in significant part upon Wife's cohabitation with Lewis, Husband filed a second motion to modify ("Motion to Modify") in May 2014. In response thereto, Wife filed a motion for contempt ("Motion for Contempt"), requesting the trial court to set aside the Prior Consent Modification and order Husband to satisfy purported past due maintenance obligations. In addition, Wife filed an answer and motion to dismiss Husband's Motion to Modify ("Motion to Dismiss"), arguing, in part, that the MSA prohibited any modification of the maintenance awarded in the Dissolution Judgment. Neither party requested any specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Following a bench trial on Husband and Wife's respective motions, the trial court entered a judgment granting Wife's Motion to Dismiss, denying Husband's Motion to Modify, and denying Wife's Motion for Contempt. The trial court focused its conclusion upon paragraph 14 of the MSA, finding:
The [MSA] clearly states that the "terms of this Agreement shall not be subjected to modification or change, regardless of the relative circumstances of the parties, except as specifically provided for in the Agreement." [Husband] has not offered any evidence or argued that his Motion [to Modify] is based upon any condition "specifically provided for" in the [MSA], and accordingly his motion fails.
The trial court's judgment does not contain any reference as to the consequence of the Prior Consent Modification. Husband now appeals.
Husband raises three points on appeal. In his first point, Husband argues the trial court erred in dismissing his Motion to Modify upon finding that the maintenance award was not modifiable.1 In Husband's second and third points on appeal, he argues the trial court erred in finding Wife's relationship and cohabitation with Lewis neither terminated Husband's maintenance obligation nor constituted a substantial and continuing change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modification. Husband asserts the trial court's finding was against the weight of the evidence as well as not supported by substantial evidence.
This Court reviews a ruling on a motion to modify to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence, whether it is against the weight of the evidence, or whether it erroneously declares or applies the law. Kunce v. Kunce , 459 S.W.3d 443, 446 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) ; see also Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We view all evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and all factual issues upon which the trial court elected not to make specific findings of fact are considered to have been found in accordance with the trial court's judgment. Swartz v. Johnson, 192 S.W.3d 752, 754 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) ; see Rule 73.01(c).2 Further, we will defer to the trial court even if the evidence could support a different conclusion. Butts v. Butts , 906 S.W.2d 859, 861 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995).
In his first point on appeal, Husband contends the trial court erred in dismissing his Motion to Modify upon finding that the maintenance award was not modifiable.
As a threshold matter, the parties agree that the trial court awarded "separation agreement decretal maintenance,"3 authorized by section 452, 325 RSMo 2000,4 which reads:
The parties' disagreement essentially lies in determining whether the Dissolution Decree or the MSA controls regarding modifiability of the maintenance award. To begin our analysis on this point, we first look to the terms of the trial court's Dissolution Decree which reads:
(strike-out in original).
Also relevant to our analysis is the language of the MSA, which provides in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial