Theilen v. Theilen, WD
| Decision Date | 12 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 911 S.W.2d 317 |
| Parties | Jerry E. THEILEN, Respondent, v. Virginia D. THEILEN, Appellant. 50818. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Michael P. Keleher, Keleher & Eastman, Gladstone, for appellant.
John R. Shank, Jr., James A. Kessinger, Gunn, Shank & Stover, P.C., Kansas City, for respondent.
Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ULRICH and LAURA DENVER STITH, JJ.
Virginia D. Theilen appeals the trial court's order modifying the maintenance award she received in the 1991 dissolution decree terminating her marriage to Dr. Jerry E. Theilen. She claims the court erred in reducing the amount of maintenance Dr. Theilen is required to pay her based on her increased income from employment and from marital property apportioned her in the original decree. She also claims error in the trial court's apparent consideration of the award of attorney fees as reducing her monthly expenses as a factor in modifying the maintenance.
The portion of the judgment reducing the amount of maintenance is reversed. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
The parties' marriage was dissolved on November, 15, 1991. Dr. Theilen was awarded his interest in three business ventures and the marital home. He was ultimately required to pay Ms. Theilen the sum of $137,000 as part of the property division determined by the court on remand after appeal of the divorce decree. Theilen v. Theilen, 847 S.W.2d 116 (Mo.App.1992). This amount was to come from the sale of the marital home with the provision that if it were not sold within 180 days, then the $137,000 was to be paid in $2,000 monthly installments with interest until paid in full. Additionally, Dr. Theilen was ordered to pay $1,040 per month in child support and $800 per month in maintenance. 1
Ms. Theilen appeals the reduction of maintenance from $800.00 per month to $350.00 per month. She claims that the trial court erred when it based its decision on her income and marital property that had been apportioned to her, in that these factors were considered in the original award of maintenance and, therefore, no substantial change of circumstance exists. Reversal of a modification order is only appropriate when not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. Habig v. Gohagan, 890 S.W.2d 732, 735 (Mo.App.1995).
For a modification to be appropriate the movant must establish changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms of the dissolution decree unreasonable. § 452.370 RSMo Supp.1995; Campbell v. Campbell, 825 S.W.2d 319, 321 (Mo.App.1992); Baldridge v. Baldridge, 789 S.W.2d 816, 817 (Mo.App.1990). The burden is upon the movant to establish both of these factors. Crowell v. Crowell, 742 S.W.2d 244 (Mo.App.1987).
The trial court's conclusion that circumstances had substantially changed since the original decree was based on four findings of fact. The court found (1) the businesses awarded to Dr. Theilen at the time of the dissolution were currently providing him with substantially the same or similar disposable income that they provided at the time of the dissolution; (2) Ms. Theilen received as part of the property distribution substantial assets that are earning interest; (3) Ms. Theilen was capable of working 40 hours per week at $6.00 per hour resulting in income of $1,040 per month; and, (4) Ms. Theilen's current savings of $45,000, yielding 6% interest produces $225 per month as interest income. These findings constitute insubstantial change of circumstances to support modification of the support provision of the original decree.
The court originally awarded maintenance knowing what the property settlement entailed. In fact, when the $800 award of maintenance was made, the trial court believed Ms. Theilen would receive a greater distribution of property than was ultimately determined appropriate following remand of the case after appeal by this Court. 2 Income from the property the wife received because of the decree was foreseen when the decree was entered. Vance v. Vance, 852 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Mo.App.1993). Change entails a departure from prior known conditions. Fulp v. Fulp, 808 S.W.2d 421, 423 (Mo.App.1991). Therefore, the reasonably foreseeable income produced as a result of the assets Ms. Theilen received in the dissolution decree does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re The Marriage of Helmestetter v. Helmestetter
...that is only one factor of the several in the case at bar. See Sprouse v. Sprouse, 969 S.W.2d 836 (Mo.App. 1998); Theilen v. Theilen, 911 S.W.2d 317 (Mo.App. 1995). Likewise, Jan also points out that a decrease in the payor spouse's income by itself is similarly not enough to warrant the mo......
-
Perry State Bank v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co., WD
...is defined as "to make different" or to alter or modify. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 373 (1993). In Theilen v. Theilen, 911 S.W.2d 317 (Mo.App.1995), this Court defined "change" as "a departure from prior known conditions." Id. at 319 (defining "change" in the context of a ......
-
Lindo v. Higginbotham
...amount to a modification of the division of property in the original dissolution action." It cited the case of Theilen v. Theilen , 911 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995), which stands for the proposition that "reasonably foreseeable income produced as a result of the assets [Wife] receiv......
-
Brooks v. Brooks, WD
...of the evidence; or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Lamont v. Lamont, 922 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Mo.App.1996); Theilen v. Theilen, 911 S.W.2d 317, 318 (Mo.App.1995). As to maintenance orders, the trial court is granted broad discretion, and "[t]he evidence is viewed favorable to the dec......