History
  • No items yet
midpage
Shaw v. Shaw
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1317
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013
Read the full case

Background

  • Gabbert (Judge) reviews dissolution of marriage between Tara Shaw and Christopher Shaw.
  • Wife appeals two points: (1) denial of rehabilitative maintenance; (2) equal division of ESOP retirement account, arguing part is non-marital.
  • Marital assets include ESOP and Roth IRA; ESOP vests after three years and was rolled into Roth IRA.
  • Trial court found no maintenance due to threshold findings; classified ESOP as marital property and divided accordingly.
  • On appeal, court affirms, holding maintenance not warranted and the overall division fair even if ESOP classification were incorrect.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Maintenance threshold error Shaw contends she lacks property and income to support herself Court correctly found Shaw had sufficient property and could work No error; maintenance denied
ESOP classification/division All ESOP funds should be non-marital to exclude from division Even if misclassified, division was fair; Wife received ESOP via Roth IRA Decree affirmed; classification error did not affect fairness

Key Cases Cited

  • Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for reviewing dissolution decrees; abuse of discretion standard)
  • In re Marriage of Taylor, 244 S.W.3d 804 (Mo.App.2008) (two-threshold test for maintenance: lack of property and inability to support self)
  • Isakson v. Isakson, 277 S.W.3d 784 (Mo.App.2009) (courts may award rehabilitative maintenance for further training)
  • Laffey v. Laffey, 4 S.W.3d 655 (Mo.App.1999) (broad discretion in identifying marital property and equitable division)
  • Dowell v. Dowell, 203 S.W.3d 271 (Mo.App.2006) (presumption of correctness; burden on challenger to overcome)
  • Burk v. Burk, 936 S.W.2d 144 (Mo.App.1996) (mere error in classification does not mandate reversal if decree is fair)
  • Poole v. Poole, 977 S.W.2d 940 (Mo.App.1998) (division need not be equal but must be fair and equitable)
  • Absher v. Absher, 841 S.W.2d 293 (Mo.App.1992) (broad discretion in identifying marital property)
  • Kelly v. Kelly, 340 S.W.3d 673 (Mo.App.2011) (burden on claimant to show property exception under §452.330.2)
  • Taylor v. Taylor, 12 S.W.3d 340 (Mo.App.2000) (trial court credibility and employment considerations on maintenance)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Shaw v. Shaw
Court Name: Missouri Court of Appeals
Date Published: Nov 5, 2013
Citation: 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1317
Docket Number: No. WD 75843
Court Abbreviation: Mo. Ct. App.