Hal Orange v. Jeanine R. White
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1192
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Husband and Wife married in 2006, separated in December 2013, and divorced following trial; no children of the marriage.
- Husband retired in 2012 and since 2014 his sole recurring income is Social Security ($1,547/mo) and Public School Retirement ($1,844.36/mo); the trial court nevertheless averaged Husband’s 2012 and 2013 incomes (totaling a higher monthly figure) to calculate maintenance.
- Husband has outstanding tax, medical, and credit-card debts; the court adjusted some credit‑card payments but declined to treat other debts as regular expenses absent proof.
- Wife is a Social Security disability recipient (receiving $1,671.90/mo) due to nerve damage that prevents her from performing prior clerical work; the trial court found her unable to meet needs and set modifiable maintenance of $350/mo.
- Husband moved for reconsideration; trial court denied the motion. Husband appealed raising three points: (1) Social Security and teacher’s retirement cannot be considered income for maintenance; (2) the maintenance calculation improperly relied on 2012–2013 income rather than Husband’s current circumstances; (3) Wife is capable of earning income and the court’s expense findings (housing) were speculative.
- Appellate disposition: the court affirmed that retirement and Social Security benefits may be considered in maintenance calculations, affirmed findings as to Wife’s disability and expenses, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of maintenance based on Husband’s current (post‑retirement/2014) financial circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Social Security and public‑school retirement benefits may be considered in computing maintenance | These benefits are unassignable/nondivisible under 42 U.S.C. § 407 and § 169.572 and thus cannot be used as income for maintenance | Benefits are unassignable as property but may be considered as economic factors when determining maintenance | Court: Benefits are unassignable but may be considered as relevant economic factors for maintenance; no error in considering them |
| Whether the trial court erred by using averaged 2012–2013 income rather than Husband’s current post‑retirement income | Averaging 2012–2013 income ignored that Husband is retired and now receives only retirement/SS benefits and has debts, so the award overstates his ability to pay | Trial court permissibly relied on submitted tax returns and past income averages | Court: Reversed on this point — maintenance must be recalculated based on existing/current circumstances (include 2014 financial evidence) |
| Whether Wife is capable of earning income and whether housing expense findings were speculative | Wife’s disability is subject to periodic review (not conclusively permanent) and projected housing needs were speculative | Wife presented disability testimony and current/prospective housing evidence; trial court credibility determinations supported finding she cannot work and $600 rent is reasonable | Court: Affirmed — evidence supports Wife’s disability, earning incapacity, and the housing expense finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Hogan v. Hogan, 796 S.W.2d 400 (Mo. App. E.D.) (Social Security benefits are proper economic factors in maintenance determinations)
- Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371 (2003) (restrictive construction of "other legal process" in § 407)
- Workman v. Workman, 293 S.W.3d 89 (Mo. App. E.D.) (maintenance must be based on parties' existing circumstances)
- Henbest v. Henbest, 164 S.W.3d 198 (Mo. App. S.D.) (importance of examining past and present income to project earning capacity)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc) (standards for appellate review of bench trials)