Wachter v. Wachter, 44511
| Decision Date | 23 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 44511,44511 |
| Citation | 645 S.W.2d 111 |
| Parties | Frances Eugenia WACHTER, Appellant, v. Robert Dale WACHTER, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Hale W. Brown, Kirkwood, Melba I. Parente, Clayton, for appellant.
David McMahon, Clayton, for respondent.
Wife appeals from dissolution decree. We affirm.
The decree provides that wife has general custody of the parties' 10-year old daughter and that husband shall have temporary custody at specified dates and times. Husband is ordered to pay $300.00 per month child support, to pay for hospital and medical insurance for the child, and to pay for the child's summer camp. The decree provides that wife shall keep one car, the personal property and furnishings in the family home, certain securities, a certificate of deposit, and her retirement benefits. Husband shall keep one car, unimproved real property in Colorado, an airplane valued at $400.00, and his retirement benefits. Further, husband shall assume and pay all remaining marital debts. The decree provides that the family home, valued at $90,000.00 and encumbered by a note of approximately $50,000.00, shall be sold and the proceeds divided equally between husband and wife. The decree does not provide for maintenance to either party.
Husband was 33 years old at the time of trial, had a bachelor of science degree in business administration, and was self-employed selling investments and life insurance. His income was primarily from commissions. He paid his own business expenses including expenses for office space and secretarial help. In 1980, his gross income was $60,878.00, and his business expenses were $18,754.00. Wife was 30 years of age, had completed two years of college, and was employed as plant coordinator at Artistic Furniture Company. Her gross annual salary was $16,120.00. Wife had worked throughout the parties' 10-year marriage.
On appeal, wife contends the court erred by not ascribing a value to each item of marital property, by not awarding her more than one-half the marital property, by not permitting her and the child to live in the marital home and ordering husband to help make payments on the home, and by not awarding her maintenance. These omissions constitute error, wife contends, because she had worked throughout the marriage and contributed to the acquisition of the marital property, husband was guilty of marital misconduct, and husband's income was substantially larger than her own.
Among the relevant factors a court should consider in dividing marital property are: the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property including the contribution of a spouse as homemaker; the value of the property set aside to each spouse; the economic circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dardick v. Dardick
...assign a value to each item on the property inventory. See, e.g., Flach v. Flach, 645 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Mo.App.1982); Wachter v. Wachter, 645 S.W.2d 111, 113 (Mo.App.1982); In re Marriage of Meecey, 603 S.W.2d 62, 63 (Mo.App.1980); Waitsman v. Waitsman, 599 S.W.2d 42, 43 (Mo.App.1980). When ......
-
Davis v. Davis, 48967
...or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not seek employment outside the home. § 452.335 RSMo 1978; Wachter v. Wachter, 645 S.W.2d 111, 113 (Mo.App.1982). "The determination of the trial court with respect to allowance and amount of spousal maintenance is discretionary, and a......
-
Townsend v. Townsend, 49726
...or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not seek employment outside the home. § 452.335 RSMo 1978; Wachter v. Wachter, 645 S.W.2d 111, 113 (Mo.App.1982). The determination of the trial court with respect to the allowance and amount of maintenance is discretionary, and our re......
-
Lampe v. Lampe, 48650
...distinction was recognized by this court in In re Marriage of Neubern, 535 S.W.2d 499, 503 (Mo.App.1976). Also see Wachter v. Wachter, 645 S.W.2d 111, 113 (Mo.App.1982); Bell v. Bell, 641 S.W.2d 854, 855 (Mo.App.1982). Where there is no evidence to support a finding that the children's cond......