In Re Marriage of Cornella
335 S.W.3d 545
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Husband and Wife married in May 1993 and separated in November 2000, have two children, Nolan and Rosemary.
- Original judgment in 2003 required Husband to pay Wife $4,874 monthly maintenance and maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy naming Wife as beneficiary; custody was joint but parenting plan allocated roughly 75% time to Wife.
- Husband moved to modify in 2006 and 2007; issues included parenting time and maintenance termination, with GAL appointed for the children.
- In 2009 trial, Husband abandoned Counts I and II (custody/visitation), leaving Count III (maintenance) as the primary focus; Wife sought to preserve maintenance and recover attorney’s fees.
- Evidence showed Wife had not worked since 1996, living as a stay-at-home mom per an oral agreement, while the children suffered emotional difficulties requiring ongoing attention and therapy.
- Husband’s financial situation had substantially improved by 2009, with reported monthly income well above the original earnings and substantial corporate assets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good faith stay-at-home arrangement supports maintenance stay. | Cornella argues good faith stay-at-home justified not seeking work. | Cornella contends no such agreement justifies refusal to seek employment. | Court upheld good faith finding supporting non-employment. |
| Whether the stay-at-home agreement can excuse failure to seek employment in modification. | Wife relied on the agreement to remain home during children’s emotional difficulties. | Husband disputes reliance on such agreement in modification context. | Court affirmed reliance on the agreement in modification context. |
| Whether Wife's increased expenses and earnings potential justify continued maintenance. | Wife’s needs increased; she cannot meet needs with minimum wage, given expenses and taxes. | Wife should be able to become self-sufficient and reduce maintenance. | Court denied termination of maintenance; Wife’s needs and earning capacity found insufficient to negate maintenance. |
| Whether attorney’s fees award against Husband was proper. | Wife incurred fees defending ongoing custody litigation and responding to Husband’s conduct; disparity in resources supports award. | Challenge to fees based on conduct and settlements. | Court affirmed attorney’s fees to Wife, based on financial disparity and Husband’s litigation conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newport v. Newport, 759 S.W.2d 630 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) (adopted maintenance where wife stayed home for children; self-sufficiency yields to caregiving duties)
- Vehlewald v. Vehlewald, 853 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (not requiring outside employment where one parent remains home to care for child)
- Hartzell v. Hartzell, 976 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (maintenance modification requires demonstrating inability to contribute without preventing circumstances)
- Markowski v. Markowski, 736 S.W.2d 463 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987) (initial and continuing duty to seek employment; exceptions for caregiving)
- Lindeman v. Lindeman, 140 S.W.3d 266 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (significant income disparity supports attorney’s fees award)
- Woolsey v. Woolsey, 904 S.W.2d 95 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (attorney’s fees award based on disparity of resources)
- Long v. Long, 135 S.W.3d 538 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (conduct increasing fees may justify awarding fees to other party)
- Adair v. Adair, 124 S.W.3d 34 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (conduct during litigation can affect fees)
- Bussen v. Bussen, 273 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (affirming fee awards based on financial resources and conduct)