Vogt v. Ketzner, 43294

Decision Date25 May 1982
Docket NumberNo. 43294,43294
Citation634 S.W.2d 583
PartiesRebecca L. VOGT (formerly Ketzner), Appellant, v. Joseph H. KETZNER, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Irvin L. Ruzicka, St. Louis, Gary J. Morris, Clayton, for appellant.

Harold E. Horsley, Valley Park, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Wife appeals from decree of dissolution of ten year marriage. The trial court gave general custody of the couple's two children, ages nine and five, to husband, divided the marital property, and awarded wife $200.00 per month maintenance for five years. We affirm as to the trial court's award of custody and division of marital property, but modify the judgment as to limited maintenance.

The record shows substantial evidence for the trial court's order as to custody and the allocation of marital property. Believability of witnesses is for the trial court as the trier of fact. So long as there is credible evidence upon which the trial court can formulate its beliefs, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Rule 73.01(c)(2); Wells v. Wells, 623 S.W.2d 19, 22 (Mo.App.1981). The judgment of the trial court on these points is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears and an extended discussion in this regard would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).

The record in this case, however, does not justify the imposition of the five year maintenance restriction. There is no evidence or reasonable probability that wife's situation will be different in the future. Murphy v. Murphy, 613 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo.App.1981). Wife was a high school graduate who had suffered psychological problems. She had worked in the restaurant owned by her husband and after the separation had been employed as a waitress. There was no evidence of future schooling or dramatically improved employment prospects down the line. Accordingly, the five year restriction on the maintenance is lifted, and the judgment is modified to that extent.

Judgment affirmed as modified.

REINHARD, P. J., and SNYDER, J., concur.

REINHARD, Presiding Judge, concurring.

I concur in the majority opinion, however, I want to state my view on the issue of the limitation of maintenance. Ordinarily, I believe that an appellate court should not tamper with a trial court's determination to limit the period of maintenance. If any reasonable rationale can be inferred from the record for a limitation, we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Turner v. Turner, 45311
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 1, 1983
    ...of the trial court respecting maintenance is affirmed except insofar as it terminates maintenance after two years. Vogt v. Ketzner, 634 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Mo.App.1982); Wisdom v. Wisdom, 613 S.W.2d 693, 695 (Mo.App.1981); Ruth v. Ruth, 560 S.W.2d 897, 898 We hold that the disposition of the f......
  • Weast v. Weast, 45874
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 12, 1983
    ...fees, property appraisals, taxes and litigation costs. It was the trial court's function to determine credibility. Vogt v. Ketzner, 634 S.W.2d 583 (Mo.App.1982). We find no error in the trial court's conclusion that respondent did not have the funds, as there was no finding that the funds e......
  • Newman v. Newman, 51086
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 7, 1986
    ...probability, maintenance will not be needed upon termination. Blount v. Blount, 674 S.W.2d 612, 614 (Mo.App.1984); and Vogt v. Ketzner, 634 S.W.2d 583, 583 (Mo.App.1982). Wife maintains that there is no evidence that in five years she will be self-supporting and employed full-time. However,......
  • Hutchins v. Hutchins, 48767
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1985
    ...to limit maintenance, it should be affirmed. Sansone v. Sansone, 615 S.W.2d 670 (Mo.App.1981); Vogt v. Ketzner, 634 S.W.2d 583 at 584 (Mo.App.1982) (concurring opinion). Our review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that the limitation on maintenance is not supported by substan......
  • 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