Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

632 S.W.2d 91

Smith v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 30, 1982

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1982-03-30

Relies on LoPiccolo v. LoPiccolo

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-03-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2018

4 state decisions

201982199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CRIST, Judge.

¶1Former husband (husband) appeals from trial court’s modification of a dissolution decree providing maintenance for former wife (wife). We affirm.

¶2The couple’s marriage was dissolved February 10, 1975. The couple stipulated, and the trial court decreed, wife was to have custody of their daughter, the family home, car and all savings accounts. Further, husband was to pay $300.00 per month maintenance, all of wife’s medical expenses, and $125.00 per month child support.

¶3On June 8, 1977, the decree was modified whereby wife’s maintenance was reduced to $215.00 per month and the provision for wife’s medical expenses eliminated.

¶4On October 3,1978, the dissolution decree was again modified by awarding custody of daughter to husband and terminating husband’s obligation to pay child support. This change of legal custody was done by agreement of husband and wife.

¶5On August 13, 1979, husband filed his motion to modify praying for elimination of all payments of maintenance to wife. On June 23,1980, the trial court found continual and substantial change of circumstances by the change of custody under § 452.370, RSMo.1978, and reduced maintenance payments from $215.00 per month to $180.00 per month.

¶6Husband asserts error on the part of the trial court in not following the guidelines of § 452.335 in determining the modification of maintenance. The trial court may look to these criteria for direction in redetermining maintenance, LoPiccolo v. LoPiccolo, 581 S.W.2d 421, 424 (Mo.App.1979), but there is no requirement that it do so. In any event, the trial court’s extensive recitation of the evidence reveals that it did consider the criteria of § 452.335 in reducing wife’s maintenance.

¶7The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no precedential value.

¶8Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

REINHARD, P. J., and SNYDER, J., concur.
/632/sw2d/91 · .json · Public domain