Williams v. Williams, 53207
| Decision Date | 28 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 53207,53207 |
| Citation | 753 S.W.2d 101 |
| Parties | In re: Marriage of Charlene A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Tommy G. WILLIAMS, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Harold G. Johnson, St. Ann, for respondent-appellant.
Jerome S. Kraus, St. Louis, for petitioner-respondent.
Tommy G. Williams (hereinafter referred to as Husband) appeals the decree of dissolution ordered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Husband's sole allegation on appeal is that the trial court erred when it awarded maintenance to Charlene A. Williams (hereinafter referred to as Wife). Finding Husband's contention to be without merit, we affirm.
The evidence reveals that the parties were married on February 14, 1976, and that two children were born of the marriage. On April 22, 1986, the trial court heard the parties dissolution of marriage action. The trial court issued a decree of dissolution in which it awarded Wife custody of the two minor children, and ordered Husband to pay child support in the amount of $350.00 each month per child and maintenance in the amount of $500.00 per month. Additional facts will be set forth as they become warranted by our discussion of the issues.
At the outset, this court recognizes the appropriate standard of review. The decree of dissolution must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence and neither erroneously declares nor applies the law. Bull v. Bull, 634 S.W.2d 228, 229 (Mo.App., E.D.1982). We will only set aside a divorce decree on the basis that it is against the weight of the evidence with caution and with a firm belief that the decree is clearly wrong. Butler v. Butler, 698 S.W.2d 545, 548 (Mo.App., E.D.1985). And, it is the burden of the party who challenges an award of maintenance to demonstrate that the award is so excessive as to constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Kessler v. Kessler, 719 S.W.2d 138, 140 (Mo.App., E.D.1986).
Husband argues on appeal that the trial court improperly awarded Wife maintenance; specifically, he maintains that she is able to support herself through appropriate employment. A spouse who seeks maintenance must demonstrate need. Hemphill v. Hemphill, 710 S.W.2d 438, 439 (Mo.App., E.D.1986). Missouri law provides that a spouse who seeks maintenance must show that he lacks sufficient property to provide for his reasonable needs and is unable to support himself through appropriate employment. RSMo § 452.335.1 (1986). The trial court in the case before us found that both of these factors were present with respect to Wife. We believe that the decision is supported by substantial evidence. At the time of the hearing on the dissolution decree, Wife, a high school graduate, was employed as a nursing assistant at Southgate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Tappan, In re, 18185
...the recipient for the amount withheld for taxes from the latter's earnings. The maintenance award was affirmed. In Williams v. Williams, 753 S.W.2d 101 (Mo.App.E.D.1988), the opinion notes the wife was employed earning a "net monthly income" of about $521. Id. at 102. We infer this was her ......
-
McCallister v. McCallister, No. 17067
...need to "close the gap" between the income of the spouse who seeks maintenance and that spouse's monthly expenses. Williams v. Williams, 753 S.W.2d 101, 102 (Mo.App.1988). And the trial court properly considered the wife's anticipated expenses for rent, utilities and uninsured medical care ......
-
Grams v. Grams, s. 56588
...maintenance award to demonstrate it is so excessive that it constitutes an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Williams v. Williams, 753 S.W.2d 101, 102 (Mo.App.1988). The amount awarded must be patently unwarranted and wholly beyond the means of the spouse ordered to pay maintenance bef......
-
Marriage of Clark, In re, 57601
...evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence and neither erroneously declares nor applies the law. Williams v. Williams, 753 S.W.2d 101, 102 (Mo.App.1988). The admission of improper evidence is not ordinarily a ground for reversal in a non-jury case. Gardner v. Robinson, 759 S.W.2d 8......