Zubiena v. Zubiena

557 S.W.2d 58, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2339
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 4, 1977
DocketNo. 37713
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 557 S.W.2d 58 (Zubiena v. Zubiena) 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
Zubiena v. Zubiena, 557 S.W.2d 58, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2339 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

CLEMENS, Presiding Judge.

Defendant-husband appeals from the monetary provisions of the trial court’s decree of dissolution of marriage, contending the court’s order compelling him to make house payments and to pay plaintiff-wife’s attorney’s fees is inconsistent with its finding that plaintiff was self supporting and its order denying maintenance.

The court awarded plaintiff child support allowances and the right to remain in the family residence during the children’s minority and thereafter until sold. Defendant’s annual income was $23,000, as compared to plaintiff’s earnings of $4,800.

Defendant contends the decreed house payments “constitute maintenance” and are inconsistent with the court’s order denying maintenance. We reject this argument. The trial court explained the allowance: “In view of the order herein made, requiring respondent (sic) to make payment of the house payment on the family home, the court determines that petitioner is able to support herself and, therefore, the court denies maintenance.” We construe this as ordering defendant to make the house payments in lieu of other maintenance.

Defendant also contends the court erred in allowing plaintiff attorney fees since it found she “was self-supporting and not entitled to maintenance.” Such an allowance is proper “after considering all relevant factors.” Section 452.355, RSMo.; Beckman v. Beckman, 545 S.W.2d 300[8] (Mo.App.1976).

We have reviewed the record in light of Murphy v. Carrón, 536 S.W.2d 30[1-3] (Mo.1976) and cannot say the decree is against the weight of the evidence or that it erroneously declares or applies the law.

Decree affirmed.

DOWD and SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Titze v. Cunningham
661 S.W.2d 623 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1983)
Harke v. Harke (In Re Harke)
24 B.R. 645 (E.D. Missouri, 1982)
Viers v. Viers
600 S.W.2d 214 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980)
Pederson v. Pederson
599 S.W.2d 51 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980)
McLaughlin v. McLaughlin
585 S.W.2d 567 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)
In Re Marriage of Ebinger
573 S.W.2d 738 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
Blair v. Blair
571 S.W.2d 480 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
557 S.W.2d 58, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zubiena-v-zubiena-moctapp-1977.