Court Opinion

ID: 9619937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:35:33.723958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:45.817449
License: Public Domain

NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER,
Judge, concurring.
Based on the limited development of the record at the temporary hearing, I concur in the result; however, I write separately to emphasize that we are not abandoning all of the principles set forth in Cross v. Cross, 790 S.W.2d 928 (Mo.App. E.D.1990). Although it is a given that the $200,000.00 which Wife had in her possession was not her marital property because the property had not been divided by the court in the dissolution, the fact remains that it was marital property pursuant to a dissolution action. Likewise, the $200,000.00 in Husband’s possession is not his marital property and must be appropriately apportioned in the dissolution. It is still the purpose of temporary allowances to maintain the status quo pending final judgment. Id. at 929.