Chaille Anderson Lindo, Petitioner/Respondent v. John Thomas Higginbotham
517 S.W.3d 558
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Higginbotham and Lindo divorced in 1996; the decree awarded Lindo portions of two pensions and other retirement assets and ordered Higginbotham to pay modifiable maintenance of $1,500/month. Lindo later purchased two MetLife annuities with assets awarded to her.
- Higginbotham previously sought modification in 2005 (denied in 2007). He filed a new motion in April 2014 seeking termination of maintenance based on his voluntary retirement (effective Sept. 1, 2014) and the resulting eligibility of Lindo to receive pension and Social Security income.
- Lindo countered, asking for an increase in maintenance and separately sought attorney’s fees and costs.
- After an evidentiary hearing in May 2015, the trial court reduced (but did not terminate) maintenance to $750/month, made the reduction retroactive to February 2015, awarded Lindo $6,000 in attorney’s fees, and ordered Lindo to reimburse Higginbotham $6,000 for overpayments for Feb–Sept 2015.
- Higginbotham appealed (challenging denial of full termination, the retroactive start date, and the attorney-fees award); the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Higginbotham's Argument | Lindo's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retirement-triggered pension/annuity income (from assets awarded in the original divorce) is a changed circumstance warranting termination of maintenance | Early retirement makes Lindo eligible for pension/annuity and Social Security income that meet her needs; therefore maintenance should be terminated | Income traceable to assets awarded in the original dissolution cannot be treated as a changed circumstance to reallocate property; Lindo still needs maintenance | Court denied termination and reduced maintenance; trial court correctly refused to treat income from assets awarded in the original dissolution as a change that modifies property division (Leslie principle) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by reducing rather than terminating maintenance based on comparative incomes and needs | Decrease in payer’s income and increase in recipient’s income (from retirement/Social Security) were substantial and continuing; should end maintenance | Recipient’s current income plus likely Social Security did not meet the court’s finding of her reasonable needs; maintenance still needed | Court found recipient’s reasonable needs ($4,500/month) exceeded her income; reduction to $750 was supported and not an abuse of discretion |
| Proper retroactive effective date for modification | Reduction should be retroactive to Sept. 1, 2014 (date of husband's retirement and eligibility) | Trial court set retroactivity to Feb. 2015 based on trial scheduling and continuance; within court’s discretion | Court affirmed Feb. 2015 retroactivity as not arbitrary or unreasonable |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding $6,000 in attorney’s fees to Lindo | Higginbotham argued fees improper because (a) his motion had merit (court reduced maintenance), (b) fees must be pleaded and cannot be awarded for defending a non-meritorious motion | Lindo properly pleaded fees, introduced evidence at trial, and trial court considered financial resources, merits, and parties’ conduct | Award affirmed: pleading was timely, Higginbotham did not object at trial, and fee award was within trial court’s discretion given income disparity and case merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc) (standard of appellate review for court-tried actions)
- Leslie v. Leslie, 827 S.W.2d 180 (Mo.) (income from marital property division cannot be treated as a changed circumstance to modify property division)
- Hill v. Hill, 53 S.W.3d 114 (Mo. banc) (trial court in original dissolution must consider income imputed from retirement/IRA accounts when calculating maintenance)
- Jung v. Jung, 886 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. App. E.D.) (discussion of imputing interest income from awarded pension in original dissolution)
- Theilen v. Theilen, 911 S.W.2d 317 (Mo. App. W.D.) (reasonably foreseeable income from assets awarded at divorce does not support modification)
- Laffey v. Laffey, 72 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. App. W.D.) (Social Security eligibility may be considered in modification)
- Bryant v. Bryant, 351 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. App. E.D.) (standards for awarding attorney’s fees in domestic-relations cases)