Ware v. Ware

Decision Date08 February 1983
Docket NumberNo. 44480,44480
Citation647 S.W.2d 582
PartiesBetty M. WARE, Respondent, v. Bobby Hugh WARE, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Hal B. Coleman, Clayton, for appellant.

Gail N. Gaus, Clayton, for respondent.

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Appellant-husband, Bobby Hugh Ware(respondent below), appeals from a decree of dissolution.He alleges error in (1) the division of marital property, (2) the award of maintenance to respondent-wife, Betty M. Ware(petitioner below), (3) the amount of child support awarded to respondent, and (4) the award of attorney's fees to respondent.We affirm.

The parties' marriage was dissolved after twenty-eight years.Two children were born of the marriage, a daughter and a son who were nineteen and fifteen years of age respectively at the time of the trial.The daughter was placed in appellant's custody, and the son, a sophomore in high school, was placed in respondent's custody.

The standard of appellate review in a court-tried case requires this court to affirm the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, or unless it erroneously declares or applies the law.Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32(Mo. banc 1976).Where there is a conflict in the evidence, the trial court has the prerogative to determine the credibility of the witnesses, accepting or rejecting all, part or none of the testimony.Trunko v. Trunko, 642 S.W.2d 673, 674-75(Mo.App.E.D., Nov. 2, 1982).The judgment is to be affirmed under any reasonable theory supported by the evidence.Prudential Property and Casualty Ins. Co., Inc. v. Cole, 586 S.W.2d 433, 434(Mo.App.1979).Further, the appellate court must accept as true the evidence and permissible inferences therefrom favorable to the prevailing party and disregard the contradictory evidence.Id. at 434.Deference is accorded the trial judge even if there is evidence which might support a different conclusion.Roark v. Harvey, 544 S.W.2d 287, 291(Mo.App.1976).Within this narrow scope of review, we now consider appellant's four allegations of error.

Appellant first contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property.The trial court found the marital property to be (1) a house worth $235,000, encumbered by a $37,000 note and deed of trust, and (2) other assets having an aggregate value of approximately $132,000.The trial court set aside $58,000 worth of assets to appellant and $6,000 worth of assets to respondent as separate property.

Assuming the sale of the house, 1the trial court's decree awarded approximately 57 percent of the marital property to respondent and 43 percent of the marital property to appellant.In dividing marital property, the trial court is required to make a just division, but it need not be equal.§ 452.330, RSMo (1978);Lewis v. Lewis, 637 S.W.2d 207, 209-210(Mo.App.1982).

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in its distribution of property because it included the parties' separate assets in computing each party's share of marital property.Although this contention is not specifically supported by the extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial judge, when each party's separate property is included with their marital property, each received property of an approximately equal value.Under § 452.330.1, RSMo (1978), separate property is one of the four nonexclusive factors to be considered by the trial court when dividing marital property.The weight to be given that factor in comparison to other factors is primarily a...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
73 cases
  • Hubbs v. Hubbs
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 5, 1994
    ...property. "The judgment [of the trial court] is to be affirmed under any reasonable theory supported by the evidence." Ware v. Ware, 647 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo.App.1983). Wife's third point is For her fourth point, wife asserts that the trial court's division of marital property was an abuse o......
  • May v. May, s. 57220
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 1990
    ...Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865 (Mo. banc 1984). Divisions of property must be equitable, not necessarily equal. Ware v. Ware, 647 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo.App.1983). A seventy-five percent award of marital assets to the wife is not a per se abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Dardick, supra, at ......
  • McAllister v. McAllister
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 2003
    ...all contrary evidence and inferences. Kell v. Kell, 53 S.W.3d 203, 205 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001); Mehra, 819 S.W.2d at 352; Ware v. Ware, 647 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo.App. E.D. 1983). We defer to the trial court where there is conflicting evidence, and will affirm the judgment even if there is evidenc......
  • Smith v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 1985
    ...value of such separate property is to be so considered, with no elaboration on the extent and manner of such consideration. Ware v. Ware, 647 S.W.2d 582 (Mo.App.1983); Hopkins v. Hopkins, 639 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.App.1982). No case has been cited or found that holds such consideration should exte......
  • Get Started for Free

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