Husband appeals from an amended decree of dissolution, challenging the division of marital property, and the award of maintenance, temporary custody and attorney’s fees to wife. We affirm as modified.
The parties, Leslie Siegenthaler, hereinafter referred to as “Wife”, and James Siegenthaler, hereinafter referred to as “Husband”, were married on September 9, 1967, and had three children: Stacey, born January 26, 1974; Bradley, born April 17, 1976; and James, born June 22, 1977. Husband and Wife separated on or about May 5, 1986. On September 11, 1986, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.
The evidence adduced at trial indicated that Husband received his Bachelor’s Degree from college in December, 1973. Husband is employed as a criminal investigator for the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. His gross salary is four thousand thirty dollars ($4,030.00) per month. Wife worked full time until the birth of the parties’ first child. Wife has worked as a substitute teacher since September 1985, and received an Associate’s Degree in May, 1987. Wife may not work more than 45 days per year as a substitute teacher because of her limited formal education. Wife receives thirty seven dollars ($37.00) for each day she works as a substitute teacher. Wife expressed her intent to obtain a Bachelor’s Degree in elementary education and a Master’s Degree in administration.
The trial court, in the decree of dissolution, awarded custody of the children to Wife, and provided for visitation by Husband. The division of marital assets gave Husband the marital residence, valued at $74,500.00, and other assets with a total value of $5,149.48. The court awarded property valued at $6,037.00 to Wife. Husband was ordered to pay marital debt eq-ualling $74,595.21 and Wife was ordered to pay marital debt equalling $4,331.45.
The court ordered Husband to pay $850.00 per month for all three children as child support and $650.00 per month as maintenance. It further ordered Husband to pay $3,600.00 to Wife’s attorney as and for attorney’s fees.
Initially, this court recognizes the appropriate standard of review. The decree of dissolution must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence and neither erroneously declares nor applies the law.
Bull v. Bull,
In his first point on appeal, Husband claims that the trial court erred by awarding indefinite maintenance in the amount of six hundred fifty dollars ($650.00) per month. Revised Statutes of Missouri, § 452.335.1 (1986), states in pertinent part:
... the court may grant a maintenance order to either spouse, but only if it finds the spouse seeking maintenance (1) Lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to him, to provide for his reasonable needs; and (2) Is unable to support himself through appropriate employment or is the custodian of a child whose condition or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the home.
Husband contends that Wife could have supported herself through appropriate employment and was therefore not entitled to maintenance. Although there is an affirmative duty of a spouse requesting maintenance to seek employment,
Phelps v. Phelps,
*265
Husband refers us to two cases where this court denied a wife maintenance or reduced the wife’s maintenance even though the wife in each case was unemployed.
Messmer v. Messmer,
Husband further claims that the trial court erred by refusing to limit maintenance to a term of three years from the date of its decree. Awards of limited duration should not be based on speculation as to future conditions of the parties.
Turner v. Turner,
Husband suggests that the trial court also erred in its award of maintenance because the court failed to consider Husband’s ability to pay such maintenance. The applicable statute, RSMo § 452.335 (1986), gives the trial court wide discretion in determining maintenance.
Messmer v. Messmer,
Husband also argues in his first point that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay eight hundred fifty dollars ($850.00) per month child support. We observe that the award is below the amount suggested by the Missouri Child Support Guidelines for three children when the Husband has gross monthly income of approximately four thousand thirty dollars ($4,030.00).
Missouri Child Support Guidelines,
735/
Husband contends in his second point on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property. He argues that the trial court erred in valuing the marital residence. When there is contradictory testimony regarding the value of the marital assets, deference is given to the trial judge, who is in a position to assess the credibility of the witnesses.
Hogrebe v. Hogrebe,
[Husband’s attorney]: Okay. Do you feel that this price tag of $74,500 is a realistic value to be placed on your home as far as what you would expect to sell it for?
[Husband]: In my opinion, yes.
*266
The trial court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. Husband further argues that the trial court erred in valuing various items of marital personal property. We again must give deference to the trial judge, who is in a position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and apply proper values to the property.
Hogrebe,
Husband contends that the trial court erred in its division of the marital assets and the marital debt. Under RSMo § 452.330 (1986) the trial court is required to divide the marital property in a just, fair and equitable manner.
Shelor v. Shelor,
Husband claims in his third point that the trial court erred in determining his rights as to temporary custody of the parties’ children. We agree. We stated in
Chastain
that the trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on custody and visitation.
Chastain v. Chastain,
The Amended Order is hereby modified to provide the Husband with temporary custody for up to six weeks during each summer, between June 1 and September 1. Husband is ordered to give Wife at least sixty days advance notice before exercising these extended periods of temporary custody. Husband is also entitled to temporary custody of all three children for a period of six consecutive days including Christmas Eve and Christmas Day during alternating Christmas holidays. Husband is further entitled to temporary custody and visitation during alternating Spring breaks and alternating Thanksgiving four day weekends.
In addition to this visitation and temporary custody, the Husband shall have the right to both visitation and temporary custody of the three children on certain alternating nationally recognized three day holiday weekends. He shall have such right to the even numbered holidays in the even numbered years and to the odd numbered holidays in the odd numbered years. Said holidays are as follows:
1. Martin Luther King Day
2. President’s Day or Washington’s Birthday (observed)
3. Memorial Day
4. Labor Day
Husband shall also have the right to both visitation and temporary custody of the three children on two weekends per month. The particular weekends are to be determined by the mutual agreement of the parties. But, when a three day holiday weekend that has been previously set forth as a weekend on which Husband is to have temporary custody occurs in a particular month, then that weekend will constitute one of his two weekends for that particular month. That part of the Amended Order granting primary custody of the minor children to the Wife is affirmed without modification.
Husband contends in his final point that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring him to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees. The trial court has wide discretion in awarding attorney’s fees.
Hemphill v.
*267
Hemphill,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.