Angel v. Angel
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1571
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Angels married in 1985 and operated multiple businesses, most notably an auction service; Ms. Angel worked as a barber for three years then in the auction business, with no formal salary or wages reported over the years.
- They filed joint tax returns and held substantial marital wealth, including numerous real properties (thirteen) free of debt.
- The parties separated in March 2008; Ms. Angel petitioned for dissolution in July 2009 and Mr. Angel counter-petitioned.
- At trial, Ms. Angel testified she was 62, unemployed, and living on Social Security ($316/month); she learned of a $120,000 investment account owned by Mr. Angel.
- The trial court found Mr. Angel’s claimed income not credible, awarded Ms. Angel two properties, other assets, and maintenance of $700/month, and reserved debt allocations; Mr. Angel challenged only maintenance.
- On appeal, the court affirms the maintenance award under Missouri law (section 452.335.1) after review for substantial evidence and discretion in maintenance determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ms. Angel met the threshold for maintenance under 452.335.1. | Angel contends Ms. Angel lacks sufficient property to meet needs. | Angel argues Ms. Angel has income-producing marital property and could work. | Maintenance affirmed; threshold not met solely by property was satisfied under the record. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered income from marital property to meet Ms. Angel’s needs. | Angel claims income from the investment account and other assets should be imputed to meet needs. | Angel argues the court should impute income from cash-like funds and allow rental income. | Imputation to the investment account is permissible; CD and rental income not properly imputed given evidence; overall impact does not alter result. |
| Whether the court erred in not imputing employment income to Ms. Angel. | Angel asserts Ms. Angel could work as a barber or auctioneer. | Angel was 62 and had not practiced as a barber in 22 years; running auctions was unlikely given her role. | No abuse of discretion in not imputing earned income; appropriate employment standard governs, not any employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for trial court judgments)
- McKown v. McKown, 280 S.W.3d 169 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (maintenance review and standard of review)
- Henning v. Henning, 72 S.W.3d 241 (Mo.App. W.D.2002) (presumption of factual findings when not requested; Rule 73.01(c))
- Childers v. Childers, 26 S.W.3d 851 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (reasonableness of needs; consideration of non-itemized expenses)
- Hall v. Hall, 336 S.W.3d 188 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (income imputation and utilization of marital property income)
- Hill v. Hill, 53 S.W.3d 114 (Mo. banc 2001) (income from marital property may be imputed or considered for maintenance)
- In re Marriage of Morris, 588 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.App. W.D.1979) (standard of living as guide for reasonable needs in long marriages)
- In re Marriage of K.B., 648 S.W.2d 201 (Mo.App. S.D.1983) (standard for considering marital standard of living in maintenance)
- Thomas v. Dir. of Revenue, 874 S.W.2d 427 (Mo.App. W.D.1994) (record supplementation rule when evidentiary omissions occur)