Vogt v. Ketzner

Missouri Court of Appeals

Vogt v. Ketzner

634 S.W.2d 583, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 2945

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 25, 1982

Docket43294

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 634 S.W.2d 583 (Vogt v. Ketzner) 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

Vogt v. Ketzner, 634 S.W.2d 583, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 2945 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

CRIST, Judge.

Wife appeals from decree of dissolution of ten year marriage. The trial court gave general custody of the couple’s two children, ages nine and five, to husband, divided the marital property, and awarded wife $200.00 per month maintenance for five years. We affirm as to the trial court’s award of custody and division of marital property, but modify the judgment as to limited maintenance.

The record shows substantial evidence for the trial court’s order as to custody and the allocation of marital property. Believability of witnesses is for the trial court as the trier of fact. So long as there is credible evidence upon which the trial court can formulate its beliefs, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Rule 73.01(c)(2); Wells v. Wells, 623 S.W.2d 19, 22 (Mo.App.1981). The judgment of the trial court on these points is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears and an extended discussion in this regard would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).

The record in this ease, however, does not justify the imposition of the five year maintenance restriction. There is no evidence or reasonable probability that wife’s situation will be different in the future. Murphy v. Murphy, 613 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo.App.1981). Wife was a high school graduate who had suffered psychological problems. She had worked in the restaurant owned by her husband and after the [584]*584separation had been employed as a waitress. There was no evidence of future schooling or dramatically improved employment prospects down the line. Accordingly, the five year restriction on the maintenance is lifted, and the judgment is modified to that extent.

Judgment affirmed as modified.

REINHARD, P. J., and SNYDER, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

Wife appeals from decree of dissolution of ten year marriage. The trial court gave general custody of the couple’s two children, ages nine and five, to husband, divided the marital property, and awarded wife $200.00 per month maintenance for five years. We affirm as to the trial court’s award of custody and division of marital property, but modify the judgment as to limited maintenance.

The record shows substantial evidence for the trial court’s order as to custody and the allocation of marital property. Believability of witnesses is for the trial court as the trier of fact. So long as there is credible evidence upon which the trial court can formulate its beliefs, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Rule 73.01(c)(2); Wells v. Wells, 623 S.W.2d 19, 22 (Mo.App.1981). The judgment of the trial court on these points is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears and an extended discussion in this regard would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).

The record in this ease, however, does not justify the imposition of the five year maintenance restriction. There is no evidence or reasonable probability that wife’s situation will be different in the future. Murphy v. Murphy, 613 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo.App.1981). Wife was a high school graduate who had suffered psychological problems. She had worked in the restaurant owned by her husband and after the [584]*584separation had been employed as a waitress. There was no evidence of future schooling or dramatically improved employment prospects down the line. Accordingly, the five year restriction on the maintenance is lifted, and the judgment is modified to that extent.

Judgment affirmed as modified.

REINHARD, P. J., and SNYDER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

634 S.W.2d 583, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 2945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogt-v-ketzner-moctapp-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack