Schubert v. Schubert
366 S.W.3d 55
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Husband and Wife married December 26, 1967; two children, daughter ~20, emancipated status at issue; separation May 24, 2007; dissolution filed November 21, 2008.
- Trial on dissolution held February 8–9, 2010 and June 16, 23, 2010; Judgment entered December 13, 2010 imputing income, awarding maintenance and child support, dividing property, and awarding Wife attorney's fees.
- Trial court imputed Husband income to $7,300/month; awarded Wife maintenance and child support; allocated marital and separate property; ordered Husband to pay Wife’s attorneys’ fees.
- Court reversed/remanded on maintenance and required recalculation of child support; affirmed all other aspects of the judgment.
- On remand, trial court must reevaluate Wife’s reasonable needs and her ability to provide for them, potentially altering the maintenance award and recalculating child support accordingly.
- Notable statutory and doctrinal context includes Missouri’s imputation of income, Hill v. Hill, and replacement-analytic approaches to characterizing severance and marital funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputation of income validity | Schubert contends no substantial evidence supports $7,300/mo. | Schuberts rely on vocational/earning-capacity evidence; court's finding supported by evidence. | Imputation affirmed; substantial evidence supported it. |
| Maintenance award reasonableness | Wife's needs overstated; assets/income from property not adequately considered. | Maintenance supported by disparity and needs; Hill considerations lacking. | Remand for recalculation; consider Wife's assets and potential income. |
| Child support for Daughter | Daughter emancipated; child support improper; notification issues moot. | Support may continue due to health/education; notice requirements apply. | Emancipation outcome nuanced; continue support given health/education; remand to recalc Form 14. |
| Insurance check characterization | Proceeds should be Wife's separate property; intended for non-marital losses. | Proceeds were for marital losses; not clearly non-marital. | Roll forward; proceeds characterized as non-marital; check sustained as Wife’s separate property. |
| Danforth Center severance payment | Severance intended as future earnings replacement; non-marital. | Severance replaced earnings during marriage; marital property. | Severance deemed marital; not separate property; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Hill, 53 S.W.3d 114 (Mo. banc 2001) (consider income from retirement/IRA assets in maintenance)
- Brill v. Brill, 65 S.W.3d 583 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (replacement analysis for severance pay)
- Shands v. Shands, 237 S.W.3d 597 (Mo.App. S.D.2007) (education-notification rules under 452.340.5)
- Noland-Vance, 344 S.W.3d 233 (Mo.App. S.D.2011) (notification requirements under 452.340.5; liberal view toward education)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (establishes standard of review for dissolution)