Muhlhauser v. Muhlhauser, 53334
| Decision Date | 24 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 53334,53334 |
| Parties | Beverly L. MUHLHAUSER, Respondent, v. Richard O. MUHLHAUSER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas J. Frawley, St. Louis, for appellant.
Douglas R. Beach, St. Louis, for respondent.
Richard O. Muhlhauser (hereinafter referred to as Husband) appeals from a decree entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in favor of Beverly L. Muhlhauser (hereinafter referred to as Wife). Husband raises two points on appeal. First, he maintains the trial court erred when it concluded Husband's interest in certain marital property reverted to Wife. Second, he contends the trial court erred when it held Husband's payments toward the education of the parties' daughter did not satisfy his obligation to pay maintenance and child support under the decree of dissolution. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
The record reveals that on April 16, 1983, Husband and Wife, pending a hearing and determination as to the dissolution of their marriage, entered into a stipulation with regard to their respective rights and duties pertaining to child support, maintenance and the division of marital property. The stipulation provided Husband pay Wife child support in the amount of $100.00 per month and maintenance as follows: (a) $650.00 per month for forty-eight months, (b) $750.00 per month for the following twelve months, and (c) $350.00 per month for the following sixty-one months. In addition, Husband agreed to transfer his interest in the parties' residence to Wife, in exchange for Wife's payment of $5,000.00 at the time of entry of the dissolution decree and her additional payment of thirty-one percent of the residence's equity within sixty months of the dissolution decree. The stipulation further stated, "Maintenance shall be contractual and shall not terminate upon remarriage or increased employment or penalty executed as per paragraph six." (emphasis supplied) Paragraph six states:
[I]n the event that [Husband] fails to make payment to [Wife] of said maintenance or child support and shall be in arrears for forty-five (45) days, then [Husband's] interest in said residence ... shall revert to [Wife] and [Husband] shall lose [his] 31% interest in said property to [Wife].
On April 22, 1983, the parties were divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution, which decree incorporated the stipulation. Wife then paid Husband $5,000.00 and received a quit claim deed to the parties' residence from Husband. Husband paid Wife $650.00 in maintenance on May 29, 1983, and again on June 6, 1983; Husband made no other maintenance payments. Husband also made two child support payments in the amounts of $100.00 on May 29, 1983, and June 6, 1983; he made no other voluntary child support payments. Wife brought suit in December 1985. The trial court on May 12, 1987, held, as Husband's maintenance and child support payments were in arrears in excess of forty-five days, Husband's interest in the residence reverted to Wife, and the court ruled Husband was obligated to pay Wife $38,526.50 in back due maintenance and $4,077.92 in back due child support.
At the outset, this court notes the appropriate standard of review. We must affirm the trial court's decree if it is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence and neither erroneously declares or applies the law. Bull v. Bull, 634 S.W.2d 228, 229 (Mo.App., E.D.1982).
In his first point, Husband alleges it was error for the trial court to hold Husband's interest in the parties' residence reverted to Wife; specifically, he argues that paragraph six of the stipulation agreement, quoted above, is unenforceable. Initially, this court recognizes it is proper for parties to a divorce action to enter into an agreement so as to determine their property rights growing out of the marriage, including maintenance and child support. Toth v. Toth, 483 S.W.2d 417, 422 (Mo.App., E.D.1972). A husband and wife may settle all property rights emanating from the marital relation by means of a valid contract executed in contemplation of divorce. North v. North, 100 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo.1936). However, although the parties are permitted to enter into such a contract, they are not permitted to determine, except within narrow limits, what remedial rights will be provided should a breach of the contract occur. See J. Calamari & J. Perillo, The Law of Contracts 564 (2nd ed. 1977). For, it is the State which is generally charged with providing remedies; public, rather than private, law defines remedies. Id.
As paragraph six of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arcese v. Daniel Schmitt & Co.
...for a default or breach."). Ordinarily, "penalty clauses" are disguised as liquidated damages clauses. Cf. Muhlhauser v. Muhlhauser, 754 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Mo.App.E.D.1988) (a clause demarcated as a "penalty" clause, may, nevertheless, be a liquidated damages clause); see also RESTATEMENT OF CONT......
-
Hawkins v. Foster
...as a whole. Yerxa, Andrews & Thurston, Inc. v. Randazzo Macaroni Mfg. Co., 315 Mo. 927, 288 S.W. 20, 33 (1926); Muhlhauser v. Muhlhauser, 754 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Mo.App.1988). See also 6 A.L.R.2d 1401 (Provision in land contract for forfeiture of payments as one for liquidated damages or penalty).......
-
Diffley v. Royal Papers, Inc.
...enforceable, while penalty clauses are invalid. Paragon Group, Inc. v. Ampleman, 878 S.W.2d 878, 880 (Mo.App.1994); Muhlhauser v. Muhlhauser, 754 S.W.2d 2, 4 (Mo.App.1988). A penalty provision specifies a punishment for default. Muhlhauser, 754 S.W.2d at 4-5. On the other hand, liquidated d......
-
Schaffer v. Haynes
...to credit for payment of these expenses. See Indermuehle v. Babbitt, 771 S.W.2d 873, 875 (Mo.App.E.D.1989); Muhlhauser v. Muhlhauser, 754 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Mo.App.E.D.1988). We note that although husband's evidence conflicted, husband testified that he paid about $9,200.00 school tuition in 1989......