Reed v. Reed, 72325
| Decision Date | 09 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 72325,72325 |
| Citation | 969 S.W.2d 287 |
| Parties | Thomas A. REED, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Victoria A. REED, Defendant/Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas A. Reed, pro se.
Jonathan L. Downard, Hansen, Stierberger, Union, for respondent.
Thomas A. Reed ("Husband") appeals pro se the judgment and decree of dissolution of his marriage to Victoria Ann Reed ("Wife"). On appeal, Husband challenges the child support award, the maintenance award, and the division of property. We affirm the child support and maintenance awards and reverse and remand the award of property so that the trial court may distribute property omitted from the decree.
Husband and Wife were married on January 24, 1970. Three children were born during the marriage, Tamera, James, and Brian. Only Brian remained unemancipated at the time of trial.
Husband and Wife settled in Sullivan, Missouri. Husband worked more or less steadily in the construction industry throughout the marriage. Wife accepted several part-time jobs but most often remained at home, running the household and farm and rearing the children. This arrangement was the wish of both parties. More recently, Wife had engaged in full-time work as a bank teller. Husband and Wife separated in 1995 after twenty-five years of marriage.
In its judgment and decree of dissolution, the trial court awarded Husband and Wife joint legal custody of Brian with physical custody to Wife and ordered Husband to make child support payments calculated pursuant to Rule 88.01 and Form 14. Wife was awarded maintenance of $600.00 per month. The court also divided the marital property.
Our standard of review in this case is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The judgment of the trial court will be sustained unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. Id.
Husband essentially makes four separate legal arguments in his single point relied on. 1 First, he claims Wife failed to meet her burden of proof that she is entitled to maintenance pursuant to section 452.335.1(2) RSMo.1994. 2 The party seeking maintenance bears the burden of establishing need before maintenance can be awarded. M.A.Z. v. F.J.Z., 943 S.W.2d 781, 788 (Mo.App.1997). Maintenance can only be awarded if the requesting party cannot meet his or her reasonable needs through property or employment. Id. Maintenance awards are usually considered within the discretion of the trial court so long as they are made within a reasonable tolerance of proof. Id.
In her Statement of Income and Expenses, Wife claimed gross wages of $953.00 per month and expenses of $2,884.50 per month. Husband argues that Wife's estimated automobile repair expenses and home maintenance expenses are excessive. Even disregarding such expenses entirely, however, the gap between Wife's income and remaining expenses exceeds the $600.00 per month in maintenance she was awarded.
The trial court found Wife was unable to meet her reasonable needs by means of employment and property. In so finding, the court noted Wife's contribution to the marriage, the relatively superior earning capacity of Husband, the standard of living established during the marriage, the duration of the marriage, and the abilities of both Husband and Wife to meet their respective needs. The trial court was correct to consider these factors and did not abuse its discretion in granting Wife maintenance in the amount it did. See section 452.335. Point denied.
Second, Husband contends the trial court's award of child support of $144.96 per week was erroneous because it failed to consider the seasonal nature of Husband's employment. However, the trial court considered evidence proffered by both parties with respect to Husband's income including income tax returns for 1993, 1994 and 1995 and an income estimate for 1996. Therefore, the trial court was aware of Husband's income over a period of several years....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laubinger v. Laubinger
...the range supported by the evidence, we cannot find that its determination was against the weight of the evidence. Reed v. Reed, 969 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Mo.App.1998). Point V. In her Point V, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in ordering her to pay retroactive temporary child sup......
-
In re Marriage of Maninger
...it, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. Reed v. Reed, 969 S.W.2d 287, 288 (Mo. App.1998). We view the evidence and permissible inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the trial court's decree and disregard......
-
Krost v. Krost
...determination of Mother's monthly gross income is not even within the range of income evidence presented. Cf., e.g., Reed v. Reed, 969 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). Thus, we hold that the amount determined by the trial court to be Mother's monthly gross income for purposes of child su......