Husband, Thomas A. Lee, appeals from the trial court’s judgment and decree dissolving his marriage to Wife, Deborah A. Lee. Husband raises four points on appeal, three challenging the award of maintenancе and one contesting the award of
*695
child support. We find two of Husband’s points dispositive. Because we are unable to determine the extent to which the trial court complied with
Hill v. Hill,
Factual Background
Husband and Wife were married on May 28,1983, and have two minor children Jasоn, bom in May 1985, and Jennifer, bom in August 1987. Husband and Wife separated on or about January 1, 2001. Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and Wife filed a cross-petition seeking, in part, maintenance and child support. At thе time of trial, Husband, a journeyman, was employed by Duct Systems, Inc., of which he is president and sole stockholder. Wife was also employed, working approximately thirty-five hours per week performing clericаl functions at Lydia’s House, a facility for abused women.
The court found that Husband’s monthly income was $28,474 per month. As to Wife, the court found the earnings from her job at Lydia’s House to be $1,505 per month, and that she could earn an additional $510 per month working as an accounting clerk. The court also imputed investment income to Wife. The court found that Wife would receive, as marital property, “liquid assets” totaling $190,168 and a cash equаlizing payment of $277,951, which if invested at a rate of 2%, would earn Wife an additional $780 per month. Thus, the trial court found, Wife’s total income from wages, as imputed, and investments was $2,795 per month. The court found this amount to be insufficient to meet Wife’s reasonable needs, which the court found to be $8,039 per month.
The court’s judgment, in part, awarded Wife $5,230 per month in modifiable periodic maintenance, awarded Wife sole physical custody of the children, and ordered Husband to pay $1,383 per month in child support. 1 The court also divided the marital property, including the marital residence and other real property, vehicles, household goоds, various banking, money market, and non-retirement security accounts, and stocks. The combined total value of these various accounts and stocks equaled $190,168 — the amount used by the court when imputing investment incоme to the Wife from her “liquid assets.” And, significant to this appeal, the court also valued, divided, and awarded as marital property four IRA accounts and one 401(k) account. 2 The court apportioned thеse retirement assets equally, awarding fifty percent in kind of each account to both Husband and Wife. According to the value of these accounts, as found by the court, the aggregate value of all these retirement accounts totaled $141,159.02. Thus, Wife was awarded an aggregate value of $70, *696 579.51 in IRA and retirement accounts apportioned as marital property.
Discussion
In his second point on appeal, Husband, in рart, alleges the trial court erred in awarding Wife $5,230 per month in maintenance because the court improperly failed to consider additional income Wife could earn from the retirement assets аwarded to her as marital property. Husband urges that the court, in imputing investment income to the Wife, only included income from the “liquid assets” totaling $190,168 and the cash equalizing payment of $277,951. Husband complains that the court did not consider or include any investment income Wife could earn from her share of the retirement assets— the four IRAs and the 401(k) account— awarded to her as marital property.
The standard for reviewing a judgment and decree of dissolution is the same for reviewing any court-tried action.
Shelton v. Shelton,
A maintenance award is “aimed at closing the gap between the income of the spouse who seeks maintenance and that spouse’s monthly expenses.”
In re Marriage of Zavadil,
In deciding the propriety of a maintenance award and the sufficiency of a spouse’s property to provide for his or her reasonable needs, the trial court must consider marital property appоrtioned to a spouse, including the interest a spouse will earn from his or her share of the marital property. Section 452.335.1;
Hill,
*697 In sum, when calculating maintenance, a trial court must consider the income from retirement and IRA accounts to be aрportioned as marital property. The trial court determines the amount of income — if any — imputed from these accounts based on the facts and circumstances of each case — including the cost to convert the account into cash, the age of the parties, their intent as to investment/consumption/retirement, the relative division of marital property and marital debts, and any equitable adjustmеnt for reasonably certain taxes and penalties.
Id.
The trial court is not required to impute income attributable to retirement and IRA accounts awarded as marital property, but the court is required to “consider” such income when calculating maintenance.
See Id.; In re Marriage of Novak,
With respect to the IRA and retirement accounts awarded Wife as marital property in this case, it is clear that the court did not impute investment income attributable to these accounts. Rather, in determining Wife’s income for purposes of determining maintenance, the court only imputed income from the cash equalizing payment, $277,951, and the “liquid assets” totaling $190,168 — the total of the various stocks, banking, money market, and non-retirement accounts awarded Wife. The court was not required to impute income attributable to the four IRA accounts and the 401(k) account. However, the court was required to “consider” the income from these accounts when calculating maintenance. Yet the judgment is silent as to whether such consideration occurred. Normally, in the absence of explicit findings, we presume the trial court made implicit findings in accordance with the result reached. Rule 73.01. However, here, we understand
Hill
and its progeny to require explicit evidence of the trial сourt’s consideration of income from retirement and IRA accounts awarded as marital property. Such explicit evidence of a trial court’s consideration might be made manifest by a trial court’s оral pronouncement of such consideration or by an appropriate finding in the court’s judgment. Such evidence is absent here. The only mention of these accounts is a listing, valuation, and the division of the аccounts awarded to each party as marital property. The court did not explain if it considered income from these accounts.
See, e.g., In re Marriage of Novak,
In his final point on appeal, Husband contends that because Wife’s income must be readjusted to account for the investment value of her retirement accounts, and because mаintenance must then be recalculated, then child support is also subject to recalculation. A factor in determining an award of child support is the financial resources of the parties. Sectiоn 452.340.1;
See also
Form 14. Because the trial court’s determination as to Wife’s income and the award of maintenance may be affected on remand, so too may its determination of child support.
See Chen,
Judgment reversed and the cause remanded.
Notes
. The pаrties were awarded joint legal custody of the children.
. Specifically, these accounts are as follows:
(a) A.G. Edwards IRA Account, in Wife’s name
(b) The Best of America IV SEP IRA, in Wife’s name
(c) American Funds IRA Account, in Husband’s name
(d) Allegiant Bank IRA Account, in Husband’s name; and
(e) Sheet Metal Workers Local 36-401(k) Account, in Husband’s name.
The court made these accounts, plus two pension funds, subject to division by Qualified Domestic Relations Order.
. All further statutory references are to RSMo.2000.