Case ID: sw2d_723/html/0898-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JAMES D. CLEMENS, Special Commissioner.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Thomas MOSS, Appellant, v. Evelyn Annette MOSS, Respondent.
    No. 51505.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Seven.
    Jan. 27, 1987.
    
      John W. Thiebes, Pacific, for appellant.
    Prudence L. Fink, Union, for respondent.
   JAMES D. CLEMENS, Special Commissioner.

Plaintiff-husband Joseph T. Moss appeals the Franklin County Circuit Court’s judgment in this action for marriage dissolution against defendant-wife Evelyn A. Moss.

Here husband first contends the trial court erred in awarding his wife $7,000 in cash, and by finding his Chrysler Motor Company stock was marital property. Secondly, husband contends the trial court erred in awarding his wife $200 monthly maintenance for three years; this he contends, because his wife could support herself.

Essentially, the testimony was uncontra-dicted: The parties were married in 1979 and separated in 1985. Each had been married before; husband had supported wife’s three minor children. By part-time work wife earned $1,491 in 1983 and 1984. After separation husband remained in the family home valued at $46,000.

Of particular interest: At the time of separation husband’s Chrysler salary was $39,829 but after separation he voluntarily took a pay cut and thereafter in 1985 he earned only $21,331. Just before trial husband sold his Chrysler stock for $8,200 and shared none of this with his wife.

Upon submission the trial court awarded husband most of the household goods, a new car, the Chrysler stock and pension. The court awarded the wife the mentioned $7,000 as part of the division of marital property and $200 monthly support for three years.

Husband presented no evidence to rebut the presumption the Chrysler stock and pension were marital property. See Nilges v. Nilges, 610 S.W.2d 58 [6, 7] (Mo.App.1980). And, as to support allowance, the decree had the evidentiary support prescribed by Civil Rule 73.01 and Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 [1-3] (Mo.1976). No error here.

Affirmed.

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