Cecelia Carlis Dickerson v. Charles Daniel Dickerson
ED106855
| Mo. Ct. App. | Jun 28, 2019Background
- Parties married in 1992; separated 2014; Wife (Cecelia) filed for dissolution in 2015; trial in Feb. 2018; judgment entered dissolving marriage.
- Wife is permanently disabled and receives Social Security Disability (~$906.70 gross; $144 withheld for Medicare/insurance). Wife testified monthly reasonable expenses of $1,849 (including expected post‑divorce increases for housing and prescriptions).
- Husband continued to work; trial evidence (bank deposits) showed net monthly income of about $4,468; Husband claimed expenses of $3,514/month.
- Trial court awarded Wife $800/month permanent, modifiable maintenance; an equalization cash payment of $7,350; and ordered Husband to pay $3,000 toward Wife’s attorney fees. Husband got the marital home and assumed most marital debt.
- Husband appealed three points: (1) amount of maintenance; (2) $7,350 equalization payment; (3) $3,000 attorney’s fees. Court of Appeals affirmed on all points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maintenance amount ($800/mo) | Wife: disability, insufficient assets, reasonable monthly needs exceed SSDI; needs maintenance to meet expenses | Husband: no evidentiary support for $800; Wife’s expense estimates speculative; double‑counted insurance; Husband cannot afford larger payment | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; statutory factors supported $800; Husband able to pay while meeting his own needs |
| Property equalization payment ($7,350) | Wife: equalization needed because Husband received home, larger share of personal property/cash | Husband: no evidence for that figure; court limited evidence of Wife’s misconduct; should get credit for payments on marital debt | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported the payment; court reasonably apportioned values and Husband was not entitled to credit for payments from marital funds |
| Attorney’s fees ($3,000) | Wife: lacks funds; Husband controlled/dissipated marital assets and had greater ability to pay | Husband: no foundation for reasonableness; no "unusual circumstances"; Wife’s conduct caused fees | Affirmed — court acted within broad discretion; Husband’s greater ability and conduct supported awarding fees; court not bound to show "unusual circumstances" |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for court‑tried cases)
- Cureau v. Cureau, 514 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2017) (deference to trial court in dissolution matters)
- Rallo v. Rallo, 477 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2015) (statutory standard for awarding attorney’s fees; no separate ‘‘unusual circumstances’’ requirement)
- Fike v. Fike, 509 S.W.3d 787 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2016) (one spouse’s greater ability to pay can support fee award)
- Orange v. White, 502 S.W.3d 773 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2016) (prospective post‑dissolution expenses may be considered in maintenance)
- Sweet v. Sweet, 154 S.W.3d 499 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2005) (medical/prescription cost increases after divorce may justify maintenance)
- Schubert v. Schubert, 366 S.W.3d 55 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2012) (trial court is expert on necessity and reasonableness of attorney’s fees)