Court Opinion

ID: 9647222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:26:54.513667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:50.079780
License: Public Domain

MAUS, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. It is not mandatory the pension be distributed between the parties. Kuchta v. Kuchta, 636 S.W.2d 663 (Mo. banc 1982). The statute mandates that the marital property be divided “in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors including_” § 452.330, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984.
The consideration and balancing of the relevant factors rests within the discretion of the trial court. Colabianchi v. Colabi-anchi, 646 S.W.2d 61 (Mo.banc 1983). This is particularly appropriate when that determination involves the evaluation of the testimony and conduct of a party who the trial court found “had no compunction whatsoever about lying under oath.”
Its Memorandum Opinion demonstrates the trial court considered not only appellant’s marital misconduct, but all relevant factors. I do not believe the able and experienced trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property as set forth in that opinion. Cf. Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.banc 1984).
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.