Richmond v. Richmond, ED 84635.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation164 S.W.3d 176
Docket NumberNo. ED 84699.,No. ED 84635.,ED 84635.,ED 84699.
PartiesMarianne Fuller RICHMOND, Respondent, v. Russell Forrest RICHMOND, Sr., Appellant.
Decision Date07 June 2005
164 S.W.3d 176
Marianne Fuller RICHMOND, Respondent,
v.
Russell Forrest RICHMOND, Sr., Appellant.
No. ED 84635.
No. ED 84699.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
June 7, 2005.

Steven W. Garrett, Clayton, MO, for appellant.

Susan M. Hais, Clayton, MO, for respondent.

Page 177

NANNETTE A. BAKER, Judge.


Russell Richmond ("Father") appeals from the final order and judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding child support and maintenance to Marianne Richmond ("Mother"), and dividing property and debts of the marriage. Father claims ten points on appeal. We deny nine of these claims and find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by an exposition of the detailed facts and law.1 Rule 84.16(b).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, the evidence shows the following: Mother and Father were married on June 11, 1989. Two children were born during the marriage, RFR on November 7, 1990, and SFR on February 16, 1993. The parties separated twice during their marriage, lastly on March 28, 2003. On August 26, 2003, there was a Judgment Pending Dissolution Proceeding, and on April 13, 2004, the marriage was dissolved in St. Louis County Circuit Court. Father and Mother were awarded joint legal and physical custody of the minor children, with Mother named the residential parent. The parties agreed on a parenting plan prior to the final order, which included the children continuing to attend private schools.

At the time of trial, Mother was a graduate student in Social Work at Washington University, and was due to graduate in May 2004, after which she would need to complete two years of supervision before taking a licensing exam. Mother had no current income. Father claimed income of only $50,000 annually, despite the apparent success of his company, Richmond Group, Inc. ("RGI"). Prior to starting RGI in 1996, Father held various executive positions with different companies, earning annual salaries of between $150,000 and more than $250,000.

Mother offered the testimony of a vocational expert, Dr. Philip Lorenz ("Lorenz"). After evaluating Father's work history and the market in which Father works, Lorenz determined that Father should be earning a salary between $150,000 and $175,000 per year. Lorenz also used Father's deposition and tax returns in making his determination that Father's current salary is not consistent with his earning ability.

The trial court imputed income to Father of $150,000 per year, for a gross monthly income of approximately $12,500. The court based its findings on Father's experience and work history; his earnings record; and the monies deposited into his business account for the months of January and February, 2004. The trial court also found that Father had monthly expenses of $4,306.

Although...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Thorp v. Thorp, ED 97995.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 15, 2013
    ...by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.” Richmond v. Richmond, 164 S.W.3d 176, 178 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). “A trial court possesses broad discretion in identifying marital property.” Absher v. Absher, 841 S.W.2d 293, 294 ......
  • Bowers v. Bowers, ED103176
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 30, 2017
    ...or it erroneously applies or declares the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976); see also Richmond v. Richmond, 164 S.W.3d 176, 178 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). However, we review de novo, any points which turn upon the interpretation of statutes and Missouri Supreme Court Rules......
  • Bowers v. Bowers, ED103176
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 30, 2017
    ...or it erroneously applies or declares the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976); see also Richmond v. Richmond, 164 S.W.3d 176, 178 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). However, we review de novo, any points which turn upon the interpretation of statutes and Missouri Supreme Court Rules......
  • Bowers v. Bowers, ED103176
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 30, 2017
    ...or it erroneously applies or declares the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976); see also Richmond v. Richmond, 164 S.W.3d 176, 178 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). However, we review de novo, any points which turn upon the interpretation of statutes and Missouri Supreme Court Rules......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT