Pursifull v. Pursifull, 56401
| Decision Date | 12 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 56401,56401 |
| Citation | 781 S.W.2d 262 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of Carlon M. PURSIFULL, Respondent, v. Arnold Gene PURSIFULL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Herbert A. Kasten Jr., Ste. Genevieve, for appellant.
David J. Barton, Clayton, for respondent.
Husband appeals from a decree of dissolution of marriage entered in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. He attacks the division of property and the award of child support. We affirm.
The Pursifulls were married on February 7, 1964, and separated in September of 1987. Five children were born of the marriage, three of whom were unemancipated at the time of trial. 1 Wife filed her petition for dissolution of marriage on September 18, 1987. The trial court, on February 8, 1989, dissolved the marriage, divided the marital property and made an award of child support. This appeal followed.
In bench tried cases, the court of appeals defers to the trial court's determination of witness credibility, Mika v. Mika, 728 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Mo.App., E.D.1987) and we affirm the judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, or unless it erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. at 281-82.
Husband's first point of appeal is that the trial court erred in its division of the marital property. The main item of marital property was the family home. In its order, the trial court found that the family home had a value of sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000.00). This would account for over fifty percent of the marital property.
Husband argues that, by awarding the home to the wife without providing him any equity interest, the trial court awarded 85% of the marital property to wife. Even if this is true, the distribution is equitable. The law does not require an equal division of the property, it requires only that the division be just. Goldberg v. Goldberg, 691 S.W.2d 317, 321 (Mo.App., E.D.1985). The evidence shows that wife has a net income of about one hundred dollars a week. Appellant, however, earned an average annual salary of $38,425.00 from 1985-1987. The economic circumstances of the parties, therefore, support a distribution favoring the wife. See RSMo § 452.330.1 (1986); Brown v. Brown, 664 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Mo.App., E.D.1984). In addition, where children are involved, Missouri law instructs the court to consider the desirability of awarding the family home to the custodial spouse. RSMo § 452.330 (1986); see also Mika 728 S.W.2d at 284; Brown 664 S.W.2d at 269.
Husband next contends that the court erred in awarding child support in the sum of sixty five ($65.00) dollars per week per child for a total of one hundred ninety five dollars ($195.00) per week. Husband argues that the amount is against the weight of the evidence.
Determination of the proper amount of child support is to be made in conformity with RSMo § 452.340 (1986). This requires that the trial court carefully balance the needs of the children and the ability of the charged spouse to pay. Wynn v. Wynn, 738 S.W.2d 915, 919 (Mo.App., E.D.1987). The amount of child support rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless the evidence is palpably insufficient to support it. In Re Marriage of DMS, 648 S.W.2d 609, 612 (Mo.App., W.D.19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. May, s. 57220
...home to an unemployed wife who has custody of a minor child. Mueller v. Mueller, 782 S.W.2d 445, 447 (Mo.App.1990); Pursifull v. Pursifull, 781 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Mo.App.1989). The husband requested the home be awarded to wife, along with a substantial debt. This in itself is evidence the awa......
-
Mehra v. Mehra
...Wiesbusch v. Deke, 762 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Mo.App.1988) Reed v. Reed, 775 S.W.2d 326, 330 (Mo.App.1989); Pursifull v. Pursifull, 781 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Mo.App.1989); In re Marriage of Cope, 805 S.W.2d 303, 308 (Mo.App.1991); § 452.340(3), (4), and (6), RSMo 1986. Further statutory factors for co......
-
Marriage of Gourley, In re, 16839
...of the marital property, but it does not require an equal division. Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.1984); Pursifull v. Pursifull, 781 S.W.2d 262 (Mo.App.1989). Dissipation of marital funds by a spouse is a factor which may properly be considered. Hogrebe v. Hogrebe, 727 S.W.2d 193 (......
-
Held v. Held
...for this position in the statute nor in the case cited by Husband, Vehlewald v. Vehlewald, 853 S.W.2d 944. In both Pursifull v. Pursifull, 781 S.W.2d 262 (Mo.App.E.D.1989) and S.E.G. v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164, 167 (Mo.App. E.D.1987), we find factual situations in which an employed spouse wh......