Missouri Court of Appeals reverses wife's maintenance in divorce case

A wife will not be receiving maintenance from her husband in dissolution of marriage because she did not present enough evidence of her reasonable needs.

In Randy Dean Schlotman, Appellant v. Angela Elizabeth Schlotman, Respondent, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District also determined the Circuit Court fairly divided the marital debt between the two parties.

The husband appealed the court's decision to award maintenance to his wife and the division of the marital property and debts.

The couple was married for ten years and owned a home worth approximately $100,000, two vehicles and had several credit card and loan debts. In 2002, the trial court ordered the husband to pay child support in the amount of $1,008 a month and non-modifiable maintenance in the amount of $500 a month.

The court ordered the house to be sold , the proceeds divided and extra items in the house be sold at a garage sale with the proceeds split. It awarded an IRA to the husband and divided the SAR/SEP equally. The wife received approximately $5,480 in household goods, while the husband received $1,790 in household goods.

The court ordered the husband to pay one-half of the mortgage payments on the house until it sold, the debt on one car, his student loan debt, his medical bills and half the balances on three credit cards.

The wife was ordered to pay the other half of the mortgage, the debt on one car, the other half of the credit card balances and her medical bills.

In his appeal the husband's first point claimed the award of monthly maintenance payments to his wife was improper because the wife did not include a request for maintenance, nor was the issue of maintenance tried by consent.

The Western District found this case similar to Buerge v. Buerge, 935 S.W. 2d 390, 392 (Mo. App. 1996) and Chapman v. Chapman, 871 S.W. 2d 123, 126 (Mo. App. 1994).

In this case, as in Chapman and Buerge, Wife introduced little to no evidence of her monthly expenses, wrote Judge Patricia Breckenridge in the court's opinion. While both parties presented evidence concerning their assets, debts and income, the only evidence adduced that bore on the issue of Wife's monthly expenses was the amount of monthly payments on the marital debts set aside to her.

Judge Breckenridge continued, those expenses do not constitute awarding maintenance.

By failing to present sufficient evidence of her reasonable needs, Wife failed to demonstrate that her needs could not be met through the property awarded to her or through her employment, Judge Breckenridge wrote.

The husband's point was granted and the maintenance reversed. The husband's other argument was the trial court erred in dividing the marital property and debts.

He claimed the division violated the general principal the division should be equal.

This court has reviewed the allocation of the marital property and finds, contrary to Husband's assertion, that it was, in fact, relatively equal, Judge Breckenridge wrote.

The husband specifically contested the division of the debt.

He argued, his wife committed acts of financial misconduct and had questionable relationships with other men.

The Western District found both parties committed acts of financial misconduct. It determined there was not evidence that the wife's misconduct warranted her paying a greater share of the debt.The court affirmed the division of property and debt.

Judges Smith and J.J. Howard concurred.

Copyright 2004 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.