Stine v. Stine
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 723
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Husband and Wife divorced in 1988; they had four children, two (Rick and Kevin) with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Custody and support arrangements were modified multiple times between 1991 and 2007.
- By 2007 maintenance to Wife had been increased to $1,750/month; Husband paid nearly $300,000 in maintenance over 23 years.
- Husband’s health declined, he reduced his law practice, and began Social Security retirement benefits in June 2011; combined household income for Husband and his current wife fell substantially from 2007 to 2011.
- Husband moved to modify maintenance; after a contested hearing the trial court reduced maintenance to $50/month, finding changed circumstances and considering Wife’s resources, cohabitants, and potential Social Security benefits.
- Wife challenged multiple rulings on appeal: denial of her Rule 67.03 dismissal motion, denial of directed verdict, sufficiency of changed-circumstances evidence for modification, and denial of attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of Rule 67.03 motion to dismiss Husband's modification motion | Wife: Husband failed to comply with the 2007 order and had resources, so case should be dismissed | Husband: He could not comply due to age, medical problems, reduced income, and later applied for Social Security when unable to work | Court: No abuse of discretion — trial court reasonably found inability to pay, not willful noncompliance |
| 2. Denial of directed verdict at close of Husband’s evidence | Wife: Husband failed to present detailed evidence about Wife’s finances, expenses, earning capacity, and other statutory factors | Husband: Presented detailed evidence of his changed circumstances, income/expenses, and his spouse’s finances; not required to prove every statutory factor to survive directed verdict | Court: Denial proper — Husband presented sufficient detailed evidence to proceed |
| 3. Whether Husband proved substantial, continuing changed circumstances to modify maintenance | Wife: Husband’s evidence was self-serving and insufficient; no expert proof of inability to work | Husband: Age, worsening medical conditions, reduced workload, lower income, increased debts justify modification | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence of Husband’s decreased ability to pay and changed circumstances supported reduction |
| 4. Whether modification was supported by evidence about Wife’s resources and cohabitants | Wife: Modification ignored her needs and caregiving duties | Husband: Wife had new resources (eligibility for Social Security), cohabitants (Matt, Kevin) contributing or able to contribute; she had not sought employment | Court: Affirmed — trial court reasonably considered Wife’s potential Social Security, cohabitation contributions, and partial self-support; maintenance reduction not an abuse of discretion |
| 5. Denial of attorney’s fees | Wife: Trial court should award her fees | Husband: Both parties have financial shortfalls and significant debts | Court: Affirmed — trial court’s decision to have each party pay own fees was within broad discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Lindhorst, 347 S.W.3d 474 (Mo. banc 2011) (changed-circumstances standard; requires detailed evidence)
- Ferry v. Ferry, 327 S.W.3d 599 (Mo. App. 2010) (trial court discretion in maintenance modification)
- C.K. v. B.K., 325 S.W.3d 431 (Mo. App. 2010) (consideration of cohabitant contributions under modification statute)
- Adams v. Adams, 51 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. App. 2001) (income decreases/increases and obligee duty to seek self-support relevant to modification)
- Willis v. Willis, 50 S.W.3d 378 (Mo. App. 2001) (no requirement of expert testimony to prove changed circumstances)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 14 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. 2000) (review of denial of dismissal under Rule 67.03 is abuse-of-discretion)
- Erickson v. Blackburn, 169 S.W.3d 69 (Mo. App. 2005) (trial court’s wide latitude on awarding attorney’s fees)