Sifers v. Sifers
| Decision Date | 29 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 544 S.W.2d 269 |
| Parties | Clarence R. SIFERS, Appellant, v. Martha Stevenson SIFERS, Respondent. 27747. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Howard E. Bodney, Kansas City, Paul Scott Kelly, Jr., Gage & Tucker, Kansas City, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert E. Sharp, Sharp & Korth, Kansas City, for respondent.
Before TURNAGE, P.J., and WELBORN and HIGGINS, Special Judges.
Clarence Sifers filed a motion to modify a divorce decree in which he had been ordered to pay Martha Sifers $400 per month alimony. The court overruled the motion and this appeal follows.
Clarence contends the court erred in overruling his motion because the evidence showed he had lost his job and was in poor health and did not expect to have any income except social security. Affirmed.
Clarence and Martha were divorced in December, 1972. A motion to modify was filed by Clarence in December, 1974. At a hearing on this motion, Clarence testified the only property he had after the divorce was.$19,000 which represented his net share of the sale of the residence he and Martha had occupied. At the time of the divorce, Clarence was employed at a salary of $15,000 per year. In the divorce decree, Clarence was awarded the custody of a 19 year old daughter for whom he testified he had paid college expenses.
In September, 1973, Clarence underwent surgery for the removal of a malignant kidney. Thereafter he was advised by his physician there was apparently no further malignancy.
In February, 1974, Clarence remarried. Within a week after such remarriage he said his job was terminated by his employer.
Clarence stated at the time of the hearing the.$19,000 was completely exhausted. He stated he had paid Martha about $9,000 in alimony, but he did not account for the balance. He stated his present wife pays all of his food, clothing, medical, dental and country club expenses. He had applied for social security benefits on the basis of age and not disability.
Clarence stated he had applied for employment with several chocolate companies since his entire work life had been in this industry, but had been unable to find a job. There was no evidence offered to show Clarence was physically unable to work or that he had any disability which would prevent him from working in the future.
Martha testified she and Clarence were married 33 years. She stated he and she are both about 62 years of age. She said her net worth was about $51,000, but she was being forced to sell her home because she could not afford to keep it up. She stated her income, exclusive of alimony, was about $2,000 per year from stock dividends. Her living expenses are $882 per month. No question was raised concerning the reasonableness of this amount.
Martha said her only work experience was as a sales person. However, she had sustained a broken bone in her foot and even though she had tried to continue her sales work was unable to do so because of her foot difficulty. She further stated she was unable to find any other work. She also had applied for social security benefits but had been rejected because she did not qualify because of her insufficient time of employment.
Martha said Clarence had not actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bogan v Bogan
...agreement, strict application of these standards in the retirement context can work unreasonable hardships. Cf. Sifers v. Sifers, 544 S.W.2d 269, 269-70 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976) (denying modification when obligor "voluntarily" retired, even though he was 62, had a malignant kidney removed, and w......
-
Deegan v. Deegan
...Burns, 232 Pa.Super. 295, 331 A.2d 768, 770 (Super.Ct.1974). The problem with the sole purpose standard was recognized in Sifers v. Sifers, 544 S.W.2d 269 (Mo.App.1976) where the court opined that it is likely that a party moving for modification will always be able to advance at least one ......
-
Kieffer v. Kieffer
...and continuing as to make the terms (of the decree) unreasonable." The burden of proving the same rests with movant, Sifers v. Sifers, 544 S.W.2d 269, 270(1) (Mo.App.1976); but, the fact a child has grown older and has more needs, aggravated by the increase in cost of living, has been held ......
-
Caray v. Caray
...burden is upon the movant, appellant here, to prove the "changed circumstances" that would warrant a modification. E. g., Sifers v. Sifers, 544 S.W.2d 269 (Mo.App.1976). The modification standards established by this statute were intended to discourage repeated or insubstantial motions for ......