Maynard v. MaynardMaynard v. Maynard
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Crist
Thе court below granted a dissolution tо wife/respondent on February 2, 1979, after default by husband/appellant. On February 13, 1979, husband filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. On February 26, 1979, after a heаring, the trial court overruled husband’s motion.
Husband appeals on the ground that there was no substantial evidence to prove wife was entitled to mаintenance in the sum of $50.00 per month. We disagree.
Wife’s dissolution petition wаs in usual form as to the one-year marriage, marriage breakdown, property division, and absence of сhildren. She alleged husband “is gainfully emplоyed, and he is earning a substantial salary.” She prayed that husband be directed to pay her “the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per month for her maintenance.” The еffect of the default was to admit thе traversable allegations of fаct contained in the petition. Sumpter v. J. E. Sieben Construction Co., 492 S.W.2d 150, 153 (Mo.App. 1973).
Husband does not seriously question that wife lаcks sufficient property to prоvide for her reasonable neеds. Section 452.335 (1) subd. (1), RSMo. 1978. There was very little separate and/or marital prоperty. Wife had no income producing property. *650Husband basically contends there was no substantial evidеnce to prove wife was unable to support herself through apрropriate employment. Seсtion 452.335 (1) subd. (2), RSMo. 1978.
We believe there was substаntial evidence to show wife was unable to support herself. Wife had a high school education. Her work experience consisted of fivе months as a part-time secretаry. She had had no special training. She made $240.00 per month. Her parents hеlped support her becausе she could not live on $240.00 per month. Wе hold this evidence was sufficient for thе trial court to find that “because of the education and training of the рetitioner she is unable at this time to whоlly support herself by her own endeavors.” Raines v. Raines, 583 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Mo. App. 1979).
The judgment is affirmed.
DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD, J., concur.