Rose v. Grote

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rose v. Grote

575 S.W.2d 929, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2430

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 1978

DocketNo. 40112

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 575 S.W.2d 929 (Rose v. Grote) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rose v. Grote, 575 S.W.2d 929, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2430 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

CLEMENS, Judge.

Petitioner, former wife of respondent, from whom she was divorced in 1970, has appealed from the partial granting of her motion to modify wherein her monthly alimony was increased from $250 to $325, which she contends is inadequate.

We have fully considered the parties’ evidence of their relative incomes and ex[930]*930penses since the 1970 divorce; reciting the details thereof would have no precedential value. The net result is that there is not enough income to meet the needs or desires of both parties.

As we ruled in petitioner’s cited case of Harriman v. Harriman, 281 S.W.2d 566[2] (Mo.App.1955): “The amount properly allowable is deemed a matter of discretion for the trial judge to such an extent that his decision will not be disturbed unless the amount awarded is so excessive or inadequate as to appear to be an abuse of judicial discretion.” In Kasper v. Helfrich, 421 S.W.2d 66[1-5] (Mo.App.1967), we held judicial discretion is abused only when the trial court’s ruling “is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to show a lack of careful consideration and shock the sense of justice,” and “if reasonable men can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion.”

Viewed in the light of these principles, the trial court did not err.

Judgment affirmed.

REINHARD, P. J., and GUNN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CLEMENS, Judge.

Petitioner, former wife of respondent, from whom she was divorced in 1970, has appealed from the partial granting of her motion to modify wherein her monthly alimony was increased from $250 to $325, which she contends is inadequate.

We have fully considered the parties’ evidence of their relative incomes and ex[930]*930penses since the 1970 divorce; reciting the details thereof would have no precedential value. The net result is that there is not enough income to meet the needs or desires of both parties.

As we ruled in petitioner’s cited case of Harriman v. Harriman, 281 S.W.2d 566[2] (Mo.App.1955): “The amount properly allowable is deemed a matter of discretion for the trial judge to such an extent that his decision will not be disturbed unless the amount awarded is so excessive or inadequate as to appear to be an abuse of judicial discretion.” In Kasper v. Helfrich, 421 S.W.2d 66[1-5] (Mo.App.1967), we held judicial discretion is abused only when the trial court’s ruling “is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to show a lack of careful consideration and shock the sense of justice,” and “if reasonable men can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion.”

Viewed in the light of these principles, the trial court did not err.

Judgment affirmed.

REINHARD, P. J., and GUNN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 S.W.2d 929, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-grote-moctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack