Appellant, Frances Reiter (Wife), appeals the trial court’s order modifying its original decree of dissolution of marriage. The order terminated previously ordered maintenance payments of $2,000 per month from Wife’s former spouse, Larry Reiter (Husband). She also appeals the trial court’s order denying her request for attorney’s fees. We affirm.
Factual Background
Husband and Wife were married June 24, 1983, in Kansas City, Missouri. Husband and Wife ceased living together about April 10, 2003, and separated about August 19, 2003.
Husband owns his own business called Larry G. Reiter, Inc. d/b/a Central States Claims Service (CSCS). Prior to the separation, Wife worked at CSCS doing bookkeeping and seсretarial work. After the separation, Husband terminated her employment with CSCS. After being terminated from her job, Wife returned to school and obtained her associate degree from the Metropolitan Community College in Kansas City, Missouri. She then began pursuing a bachelor’s degree at DeVry University. At the time of dissolution, shе was a full-time student and unemployed.
Husband still owns and is working for CSCS. At the time of dissolution, Husband’s gross income was $192,000 per year. At the same time, Wife’s reasonable needs and expenses amounted to approximately $2,490 per month. At the dissolution trial, Wife testified that her intention
The court found that the marriage was irretrievably broken and ordered the dissolution. The court also found that Wife did not have sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs and that she was unable to support herself through appropriate employment. The court awarded her modifiable maintenance of $2,000 per month. Husband appealed the grant of maintenance, and this court affirmed the trial court’s order. Reiter v. Reiter,
On June 15, 2010, Husband filed a motion to modify the dissolution decree in order to terminate or reduce the original maintenance award. Husband alleged that there existed substantial and continuing changes of circumstances rendering the prior award unreasonable. Specifically, he alleged the following changes since entry of the original dissolution decree:
(a) Husband had serious health issues;
(b) Husband’s income decreased by approximately 50%;
(c) Wife graduated from college with a degree;
(d) Wife had obtained full-time employment with the Internal Revenue Service since graduation;
(e) Wife obtаined a substantial increase in income since the dissolution;
(f) Wife owned two unencumbered homes; and
(g) Wife had adequate resources to support herself.
In response, Wife acknowledged that she had graduated from college with a degree and that she was then employed with the Internal Revenue Service, though she described her employment as “seasonal.” Wife further acknowledged that she had recently acquired the home of her deceased brother from his estate and that she resided in the marital home, which was unencumbered and which had been awarded to her at the time of dissolution. Wife denied any substantial increase in income and denied that she had adequate resources to supрort herself. Wife requested that Husband’s motion to modify be denied and that she be awarded her costs and attorney’s fees related to the modification motion.
At trial, Husband testified that, since the dissolution, Wife had obtained a bachelor’s degree and full-time employment with the IRS, where she was earning approximately $35,000 per year. Husband also testified that Wife had a home worth approximately $200,000, as well as a half-interest in a home worth $63,000, neither of which were encumbered with any debt.
Wife testified that her current annual wages were $31,676 and that she had been receiving $24,000 per year in maintenance from Husband. She indicated that these were her only sources of income. Wife acknowledged that she had obtained her degree and full-time employment, but she indicated that her job was seasonal, though she had been employed with the IRS for nearly three years. Wife also acknowledged inheriting a half-interest in her deceased brоther’s home, valued at $63,000, making her interest $31,500. Wife testified that she currently owned a vehicle, but she still owed approximately $17,000 on it. And, absent the maintenance payments, she had a monthly income of approximately $2,704.
a. Petitioner’s income has increased from $0.00 per month to $8,300.00 per month according to Petitioner’s Exhibit 8;
b. Petitioner has graduated from college and has a Bachelor’s Degree;
c. Petitioner has obtained full-time emplоyment with the Internal Revenue Service;
d. Petitioner owns substantial unencumbered assets; and
e. Petitioner has adequate resources to support herself.
The court also denied Wife’s request for attorney’s fees. Wife appeals.
Legal Analysis
Wife raises two claims on appeal: first, she argues that the trial court erred in terminating Husband’s maintenance obligation; and second, she argues that the trial court erred in denying her request fоr attorney’s fees. We affirm.
A. Substantial evidence supported the court’s modification order.
Wife first argues that the trial court erred in terminating the prior maintenance order in that there existed no substantial and continuing changes rendering the pri- or award unreasonable. Wife claims that the trial court’s cоntrary conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence insofar as
[1] there was a lack of substantial evidence that the husband’s income from his business had been significantly reduced, that any reduction in income would be continuing, or [2] that the wife’s increase in income from employment was a change in circumstances from what had been considered by the court when the decree of divorce was entered.
We disagree.
We will not reverse a modification order unless it is unsupported “by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law.” Theilen v. Theilen,
“For a modification to be appropriate!;,] the movant must establish changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms of the dissolution decree unreasonable.” Id. “The burden is upon the movant to establish both of these factors.” Id.
The first flaw in. Wife’s argument is that the trial court did not find that Husband’s decrease in income constituted a substantial and continuing change in circumstances. Rather, the court found that Wife’s circumstances constituted substantial and continuing changes, rendering Husband’s maintenance obligation unreasonable. Thus, Wife’s focus on whether the evidence supported any continuing reduction in Husband’s income is misрlaced.
The second flaw in Wife’s argument is that there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that there existed substantial and continuing changes in circumstances rendering the prior decree unreasonable. An increase in the receiving spouse’s income — though a factor to be considеred — “does not per se provide a basis for reduction of maintenance,” id. at 319; rather, the increase must render the prior decree unreasonable. In determining whether an increase in income renders the prior decree unreasonable, the court may consider a number of factors, including the purpose of the award of maintenance and the current financial needs of the receiving spouse. An
Wife argues that changes that were foreseeable or known at the time of the original award cannot support modification; she asserts that obtaining her degree and subsequent employment (with its corresponding increase in income), along with the value of assets she was provided at dissolution, were all foreseeable or known when the maintenance award was entered and, therefore, cannot serve as the basis for the modification.
We agree with Wife that “[cjhange entails a departure from prior known conditions,” and that the value of assets awarded at the time of dissolution do not constitute a change in circumstance and, thus, cannot serve as the basis for a modification. Id. at 319 (holding that wife’s receipt of income from property awarded in dissolution decree was foreseen when decree entered and, in fact, was one of the considerations in the division of property; thus, it did not constitute a change in circumstances). But the fact that she was enrolled in a degree program аt the time of dissolution and had expressed a desire to become self-sufficient through post-graduation employment does not mean that the evidence about her future earning capacity was sufficiently certain to persuade the trial court in its original maintenance award. See Rustemeyer v. Rustemeyer,
Wife’s circumstances have now changed. She has obtained a substantial increase in income (well above what she found suffi
Wife alternatively argues that even if the court’s finding of substantial and continuing changes was сorrect, it nevertheless erred in terminating, rather than simply reducing, the maintenance award. Her argument is based upon the relatively high standard of living the couple enjoyed during the marriage and the continuing sizeable income disparity between herself and Husband. The standard of living the couple enjoyed during the mаrriage is a factor that must be considered in dividing property and awarding maintenance during the original dissolution proceeding. § 452.385.2C4).
Point I is denied.
B. The trial court acted within its discretion in denying Wife’s request for attorney’s fees.
In her second point, Wife argues that the triаl court abused its discretion in denying her request for attorney’s fees. The crux of her argument is the gross disparity in the parties’ respective incomes; she argues that Husband has a much greater ability to pay, and because he brought the motion, he should foot the bill. We disagree.
Generally, parties are respоnsible for paying their own attorney’s fees. Alberswerth v. Alberswerth,
Here, the court had evidence of both parties’ incomes, and the court mаde a determination that Wife could support herself and that she was, in fact, earning approximately one and a half times the original maintenance awarded for that very purpose. We reject Wife’s argument that the income disparity, alone, was reason enough to award her attorney’s fees. “ ‘[T]he fact that one spouse’s income is greater than the other’s does not compel an award of attorney’s fees.’ ” Cohen v. Cohen,
Point II is denied.
Conclusion
The trial court’s modification order was supported by substantial evidence, and the court acted within its broad discretion in denying Wife’s request for attorney’s fees. Therefore, its judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. Statutory citations are to RSMo 2000, as updated through the 2011 cumulative supplement.