Smith v. Smith
| Decision Date | 31 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Parties | Larry G. SMITH, Appellant, v. Joan E. SMITH, Respondent. 27785. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles C. Shafer, Jr., Kansas City, for appellant.
P. Wayne Kuhlman, Liberty, for respondent.
Before SWOFFORD, P. J., PRITCHARD, C. J., and DIXON, J.
In this dissolution case, appellant by Point I contends that the trial court abused its discretion in its division of property under § 452.330, RSMo Supp.1974, in these respects: "(1) By failing to make proper and sufficient findings in accord with the statutory guidelines of V.A.M.S. 452.330(1); (2) By placing undue reliance on questions of marital fault and misconduct, and (3) By unjustly balancing the equities so in favor of wife as to severely overburden the economic stability of husband."
As to the failure of the trial court to make findings of fact, no request for same were here made. Stark v. Stark, 539 S.W.2d 779 (Mo.App.1976), a case in the same posture, controls. There neither party made request for findings of fact and conclusions of law and the court said that although they were of aid in appellate review, they were not required by Rule 73.01(2) in absence of a request for them. The court said also the requirement of § 452.330 that the court consider all relevant factors in making allocation of marital property did not require a statement of reason for the adjudication. The court said further, citing Noland v. Noland, 527 S.W.2d 696, 698(1) (Mo.App.1975), that, in any event, all fact issues are deemed found in accordance with the result reached.
As to the consideration of marital misconduct (it is not necessary to set forth that misconduct), § 452.330(4) provides that it be considered as a relevant factor. Conrad v. Bowers, 533 S.W.2d 614, 620(5-6) (Mo.App.1975), held that the statute required the court to consider as a relevant factor both good conduct and marital misconduct, and it is not limited to conduct relating to financial misdeeds. Cases and authority cited by appellant from other jurisdictions are thus not controlling.
In dissolving the marriage, the trial court awarded custody of the minor daughter to respondent with a grant of visitation rights to appellant, and ordered him to pay $165.00 per month child support; awarded respondent the family home ($10,000.00 equity with $24,500.00 mortgage requiring payments of $255.00 per month, and furnishings (valued by respondent at $1,200.00 cost, and by appellant $5,000.00 replacement value)), she to assume all encumbrances on the property. Respondent was given a 1965 Chevrolet and appellant was given a 1972 Chevrolet with an encumbrance upon it. Appellant was ordered to pay respondent's attorney fee of $500.00, and a further fee of $300.00 for this appeal. About $2,000.00 was owed by the parties to TWA credit union, payments thereon being deducted from appellant's pay. After the separation in 1974, respondent paid the home loan payments of $255.00 per month, the personal property tax, and other sundry accounts. No maintenance was awarded.
At the time of trial, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NKM v. LEM
...but all facts are deemed found in accordance with the result reached. Halbrook v. Halbrook, 557 S.W.2d 45 (Mo.App.1977); Smith v. Smith, 552 S.W.2d 321 (Mo.App.1977). In these cases, we search for evidence and inferences which from any perspective support the court's decision. Roth v. Roth,......
-
Marriage of Strelow, In re, s. 39557
...S.W.2d 736 (Mo.App.1978); Smith v. Smith, 561 S.W.2d 714 (Mo.App.1978); Daniels v. Daniels, 557 S.W.2d 702 (Mo.App.1977); Smith v. Smith, 552 S.W.2d 321 (Mo.App.1977); In re Marriage of Schulte, 546 S.W.2d 41 (Mo.App.1977); In re Marriage of Powers, 527 S.W.2d 949 (Mo.App.1975).3 Smith v. S......
-
Wilhoit v. Wilhoit
...of Badalamenti, 566 S.W.2d 229, 235(2) (Mo.App.1978); In re Marriage of Prenavo, 556 S.W.2d 463, 465(2) (Mo.App.1977). Smith v. Smith, 552 S.W.2d 321, 322(1) (Mo.App.1977); Butcher v. Butcher, 544 S.W.2d 249, 252(2) (Mo.App.1977); Stark v. Stark, 539 S.W.2d 779, 781(1) (Mo.App.1976).6 That ......
-
Arp v. Arp, KCD29644
...v. L B R , 555 S.W.2d 372 (Mo.App.1977); and this is certainly true where one spouse has engaged in marital misconduct. Smith v. Smith, 552 S.W.2d 321, 323 (Mo.App.1977); Conrad v. Bowers, 533 S.W.2d 614, 620 (Mo.App.1975); In Re Marriage of Powers, 527 S.W.2d 949, 957 After reviewing the e......