454 S.W.3d 351
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Marriage of Charles H. Stroh (Husband, age 72) and Kelly A. Stroh (Wife, age 45); two minor children born 1996 and 1999; separated Feb 2011; decree entered Oct 2013 dissolving marriage.
- Husband has long-standing, largely unencumbered real estate business producing rental income; he sometimes underreported income and took cash rents; receives Social Security; parties filed separate tax returns.
- Wife had little formal education, was primarily a homemaker during the marriage, performed work assisting Husband’s real estate business, and had modest post-separation small businesses with limited income.
- Trial court found many of Husband’s financial testimony not credible, classified several accounts and life policies as marital property, divided marital and non-marital assets, awarded Wife modifiable maintenance of $2,500/month plus substantial retroactive maintenance and $32,990.80 in attorney fees.
- Trial court ordered child support from Husband of $1,197/month for two children (dropping to $842 when one remains), based on a Form 14 attached to the judgment; Husband appealed maintenance, property classification, child support calculation, and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Stroh (Husband) Argument | Stroh (Wife) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maintenance amount | Trial court erred: Wife can support herself with property awarded and can work; no need for $2,500/mo | Wife lacks sufficient property and earning capacity; maintenance appropriate | Affirmed — trial court had substantial evidence and did not abuse discretion |
| Child support calculation | Trial court miscalculated Form 14 by using incorrect monthly gross income for Husband and wrong maintenance figure for Wife; award prejudicial | Wife concedes maintenance figure misentered but argues correction would increase Husband’s share; supports remand for correct calc | Reversed in part — child support vacated; remanded to recalculate presumed support using correct monthly figures and then award appropriate amount |
| Classification/division of investment accounts, life policies, bank accounts | These were separate (pre-marriage and funded by Husband) and should not be marital or split | Trial court found transmutation, marital contributions, and awarded to Wife as marital property | Affirmed — even if misclassification, Husband did not show overall division was unfair; point denied |
| Attorney fees award | Trial court abused discretion by awarding fees despite Wife receiving large cash awards | Wife unable to pay remaining fees and Husband had greater access and conduct warranting fees | Affirmed — trial court acted within statutory discretion and considered relevant factors |
Key Cases Cited
- McAllister v. McAllister, 101 S.W.3d 287 (Mo. App. E.D.) (trial court judgment in court-tried case presumed correct)
- In re Marriage of Hillis, 313 S.W.3d 643 (Mo.) (standards for affirming dissolution judgments)
- Mehra v. Mehra, 819 S.W.2d 351 (Mo.) (deference to factfinder credibility findings)
- Nichols v. Nichols, 14 S.W.3d 630 (Mo. App. E.D.) (maintenance limited to needs of requesting spouse)
- Russell v. Russell, 210 S.W.3d 191 (Mo.) (attorney-fee awards in dissolution cases and factors to consider)
- Crews v. Crews, 949 S.W.2d 659 (Mo. App. W.D.) (Form 14 presumed correct child support unless unjust/inappropriate)