Cureau v. Cureau
2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 205
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Marriage of long duration (married 1965); both retired at trial. Wife later became higher earner and served as Husband’s caregiver after retirement.
- Marital assets totaled about $513,312 with marital debts of $37,314; trial court’s First Amended Judgment awarded Husband ~$271,464 (52.9%) after a $115,000 equalization payment to Wife.
- Husband is legally blind, living in assisted-living, receiving pension and Social Security; Wife receives larger pension income and was found able to meet her needs.
- Parties maintained largely separate finances for decades; no binding agreement to keep earnings separate was found.
- Trial court initially denied maintenance, then after Husband’s motion based on prospective pension reduction, entered a one-dollar-per-year modifiable maintenance award in Husband’s favor (Second Amended Judgment).
- The trial court labeled Wife’s maintenance obligation as “contractual” in the Second Amended Judgment; both parties and the appellate court agreed this characterization was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding Wife a $115,000 equalization payment while granting Husband nominal, modifiable maintenance was an abuse of discretion | Husband: Court should have awarded him all Schwab accounts (no maintenance) or, if not, not imposed the $115,000 equalization because maintenance and property division must be coordinated | Wife: Property division was equitable; nominal maintenance preserves court jurisdiction if Husband’s income falls | Court: Affirmed property division and the award of nominal, modifiable maintenance; no abuse of discretion given facts at trial and Husband’s alternate requests (invited error) |
| Whether Wife’s $1/yr maintenance obligation should be contractual or decretal | Husband: Court erred by labeling obligation contractual; it should be decretal so it is judicially modifiable | Wife: Concedes error; requests deletion of "contractual" | Court: Modified judgment under Rule 84.14 to change characterization to decretal, modifiable maintenance and affirmed remainder of judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 586 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. banc 1979) (standard of appellate review for court-tried cases)
- Coleman v. Coleman, 318 S.W.3d 715 (Mo. App. 2010) (deference to trial court in dissolution matters)
- Woodard v. Woodard, 201 S.W.3d 557 (Mo. App. 2006) (property division principles and support function)
- Workman v. Workman, 293 S.W.3d 89 (Mo. App. 2009) (maintenance purpose and invited-error doctrine)
- Barbeau v. Barbeau, 72 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. App. 2002) (contractual maintenance requires an agreement)
- Wood v. Wood, 193 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. App. 2006) (Rule 84.14 authority to modify/enter judgment on appeal)
- Lindeman v. Lindeman, 140 S.W.3d 266 (Mo. App. 2004) (affirming appellate modification under Rule 84.14)
- Bushhammer v. Bushhammer, 816 S.W.2d 271 (Mo. App. 1991) (upholding retention of jurisdiction for future modification of maintenance)