Shaver v. Shaver, No. 68264

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtREINHARD
Citation913 S.W.2d 443
Decision Date16 January 1996
Docket NumberNo. 68264
PartiesPatricia SHAVER, Petitioner/Respondent, v. John D. SHAVER, Respondent/Appellant.

Page 443

913 S.W.2d 443
Patricia SHAVER, Petitioner/Respondent,
v.
John D. SHAVER, Respondent/Appellant.
No. 68264.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division One.
Jan. 16, 1996.

Page 444

Bruce F. Hilton, Julie K. Morian, Eisen, Gillespie & Hilton, Webster Groves, for appellant.

Daniel P. Card II, Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.

REINHARD, Presiding Judge.

Husband appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his motion to modify the maintenance provisions of a July 17, 1986 dissolution decree. We affirm.

The marriage of husband and wife was dissolved on July 17, 1986. The separation agreement, incorporated into the dissolution decree, contained the following provisions for maintenance:

HUSBAND shall pay to WIFE as and for contractual maintenance the sum of $3,000 per month for a period of ten (10) years. If WIFE shall remarry during the ten (10) year period, then said amount will reduce to $1,500 per month for the balance of the ten (10) year period from the date of her marriage. If the second marriage shall fail within three (3) years of the date of the second marriage, ... HUSBAND agrees to increase the amount of maintenance back to $3,000 per month as contractually agreed to for the balance of the ten (10) year period....

If HUSBAND's income should, for any reason, be reduced, HUSBAND's obligation shall be reduced....

The separation agreement further provided:

The terms of this Agreement shall not be subject to modification or change, regardless of the relative circumstances of the parties, except as specifically set forth in the Agreement. It is understood that this provision is not applicable to the terms of the Agreement dealing with child custody, visitation and support....

On October 11, 1994, husband filed a motion to modify the maintenance provisions of the dissolution decree and alleged that wife had failed to seek employment and received financial support from a man with whom she cohabited. Wife filed a motion to dismiss the motion to modify and asserted several grounds, including failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On March 30, 1995, the court granted wife's motion and dismissed husband's motion to modify but failed to state a basis for the dismissal.

On appeal, husband asserts the court erred in dismissing his motion to modify because he sufficiently alleged facts which would justify modification of his maintenance obligations.

Where a trial court fails to state a basis for its dismissal, we presume the dismissal is based on the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss. Berkowski v. St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, 854 S.W.2d 819,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Jennings v. Bd. of Curators of Mo. State Univ., No. SD 31900.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 18, 2012
    ...dismissal, the appeals court will presume that the dismissal is based on the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss. Shaver v. Shaver, 913 S.W.2d 443, 444 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). The appeals court will affirm the dismissal if it can be granted on any grounds supported by the motion to dismiss.......
  • Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 9, 2001
    ...a basis for its dismissal, this Court presumes the dismissal was based on the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss. Shaver v. Shaver, 913 S.W.2d 443, 444 (Mo. App. 1996). This Court must affirm the dismissal if it can be sustained on any ground supported by the motion to dismiss. Id. Thi......
  • Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte, WD56988
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 27, 2000
    ...a basis for its dismissal, this court presumes the dismissal was based on the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss. Shaver v. Shaver, 913 S.W.2d 443, 444 (Mo. App. 1996). This court must affirm the dismissal if it can be sustained on any ground supported by the motion to dismiss. Id. Thi......
  • Warren v. State, No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 25, 1997
    ...and sovereign immunity. We will affirm if dismissal was appropriate on any ground supported by the motion to dismiss. Shaver v. Shaver, 913 S.W.2d 443, 444 (Mo.App.1996). III. THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF OFFICIAL IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of off......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Jennings v. Bd. of Curators of Mo. State Univ., No. SD 31900.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 18, 2012
    ...dismissal, the appeals court will presume that the dismissal is based on the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss. Shaver v. Shaver, 913 S.W.2d 443, 444 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). The appeals court will affirm the dismissal if it can be granted on any grounds supported by the motion to dismiss.......
  • Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 9, 2001
    ...a basis for its dismissal, this Court presumes the dismissal was based on the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss. Shaver v. Shaver, 913 S.W.2d 443, 444 (Mo. App. 1996). This Court must affirm the dismissal if it can be sustained on any ground supported by the motion to dismiss. Id. Thi......
  • Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte, WD56988
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 27, 2000
    ...a basis for its dismissal, this court presumes the dismissal was based on the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss. Shaver v. Shaver, 913 S.W.2d 443, 444 (Mo. App. 1996). This court must affirm the dismissal if it can be sustained on any ground supported by the motion to dismiss. Id. Thi......
  • Warren v. State, No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 25, 1997
    ...and sovereign immunity. We will affirm if dismissal was appropriate on any ground supported by the motion to dismiss. Shaver v. Shaver, 913 S.W.2d 443, 444 (Mo.App.1996). III. THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF OFFICIAL IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of off......
  • 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