Thomas v. Thomas

743 S.W.2d 909, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 130, 1988 WL 6355
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 2, 1988
DocketNo. 52417
StatusPublished

This text of 743 S.W.2d 909 (Thomas v. Thomas) 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
Thomas v. Thomas, 743 S.W.2d 909, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 130, 1988 WL 6355 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Husband appeals a maintenance award of $95 per week in favor of wife in a dissolution proceeding. We affirm.

Wife was granted custody of the couple’s three minor sons, ages fifteen, fourteen and twelve. Husband was an over-the-road truck driver earning more than $3,000 per month. Husband asserts the trial court erred in awarding wife maintenance because she is physically capable of supporting herself and the needs of their children do not require that she remain unemployed.

A court may grant a maintenance order to a spouse seeking maintenance if it finds that spouse:

(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. § 452.335.1, RSMo 1986.

The trial court has wide discretion in an award of maintenance. Youngblood v. Youngblood, 717 S.W.2d 529, 530 (Mo.App.1986).

Wife received no income-producing property in the division of marital assets. No marital home was awarded to her. After the parties separated, wife rented a house. She had no employment skills and no recent job experience. Wife did not work during their marriage. She was forty-nine years of age. The children were having behavior problems which required a good deal of wife’s attention. A combination of the inferior earning potential of wife and the children’s need for a mother in the home, justifies the court’s award. See Youngblood, 717 S.W.2d at 530-31[3]; Davis v. Davis, 693 S.W.2d 879, 882-83 (Mo.App.1985).

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

Related

Davis v. Davis
693 S.W.2d 879 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)
Youngblood v. Youngblood
717 S.W.2d 529 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
743 S.W.2d 909, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 130, 1988 WL 6355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-thomas-moctapp-1988.