Bixler v. Bixler

40 Citing cases

  1. In re Marriage of Lawry

    883 S.W.2d 84 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 22 times

    The statute does not require that each party get what he or she wanted. Bixler v. Bixler, 810 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Mo.App. E.D. 1991). All references to statutes are to RSMo 1986, V.A.M.S.

  2. In re Marriage of Torix

    863 S.W.2d 935 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 20 times

    The matter of division of marital property is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bixler v. Bixler, 810 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Mo.App. 1991). The specifically enumerated factors listed in § 452.330 are not exclusive and the trial court has great flexibility and far-reaching power in dividing the marital property so as to accommodate the needs of the parties, there being no formula concerning the weight to be given the relevant factors which a court may consider.

  3. Held v. Held

    896 S.W.2d 709 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming a trial court's finding of real estate value based upon a sale of the marital home that occurred twenty-eight months before the date of trial

    The trial court is vested with considerable discretion in dividing marital property and this court only interferes if the division is so unduly weighted as to amount to an abuse of discretion. Bixler v. Bixler, 810 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Mo.App. E.D. 1991); Cartwright v. Cartwright, 707 S.W.2d 469, 474 (Mo.App. 1986). Equal division of property is not required and disproportionate divisions are routinely affirmed.

  4. Holland v. Holland

    865 S.W.2d 867 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 5 times
    Noting a trial court is not required to set forth grounds for its decision when neither party makes a timely request

    Ware v. Ware, 647 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo.App. 1983).Bixler v. Bixler, 810 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo.App. 1991). Wife contends, by her first point on appeal, that the trial court erred in awarding maintenance in the amount of $950.00 per month.

  5. Rombach v. Rombach

    867 S.W.2d 500 (Mo. 1993)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that allegations that the husband used profanity; called child a "fat little pig"; poured water on a child during a tantrum; failed to seek prompt medical attention for children's injuries; grabbed, pushed, shoved, and spoke harshly to children to get them into the car; and aimed his car at a child to give the impression that he would run the child over if the child failed to get into the car "was not sufficient to raise the issues of child abuse or neglect"

    Section 452.330(1) specifically notes the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein to the spouse with custody of the children. Bixler v. Bixler, 810 S.W.2d 95, 101 (Mo.App. 1991). Although husband argues that the trial court's evaluation of his business did not conform to the dictates of Hanson v. Hanson, 738 S.W.2d 429, 436 (Mo. banc 1987), review of the transcript reveals that many factors were considered by the parties' respective experts.

  6. Davis v. Schmidt

    210 S.W.3d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 41 times
    Noting evidence of financial condition eight months after dissolution should have been presented at hearing on movant's motion for appellate attorney's fees

    (emphasis added). Thus, while section 452.355.1 gives a trial court considerable discretion in deciding whether to award reasonable attorney fees in a dissolution action, the court must base its decision upon careful consideration of all relevant factors bearing on the propriety of the award, Bixler v. Bixler, 810 S.W.2d 95, 102 (Mo.App.E.D.1991), and must exercise the discretion with which it is invested "[w]ithin the confines of the law and the evidence." In re Marriage of Baker, 986 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Mo.App.S.D.1999).

  7. Llana v. Llana

    121 S.W.3d 286 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $2,500 and then $1,100 in monthly maintenance where spouse claimed her expenses exceeded $6,000 per month

    The payor spouse should not be required to make higher maintenance payments, then seek a modification, simply because there is not an absolute certainty that the payee spouse will be self-sufficient. Bixler v. Bixler, 810 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo. App. 1991). It is possible that Ms. Llana is unemployed partly through her own fault.

  8. Linton v. Linton

    117 S.W.3d 198 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 16 times

    A maintenance award must be just, but the court is not required to award maintenance adequate to meet all of the needs of the spouse seeking the award even if the other spouse has sufficient resources to provide such support. Bixler v. Bixler, 810 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Mo.App. 1991); see alsoHernandez v. Hernandez, 872 S.W.2d 161, 165 (Mo.App. 1994). Here, Wife has been allocated no debts; has no children to support; and was awarded marital properties in excess of $286,000.00 — the bulk consisting of monetary assets capable of yielding a reasonable investment return.

  9. Evans v. Evans

    45 S.W.3d 523 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 25 times
    Imputing income to a spouse requesting maintenance

    The law requires "that the award be just, but does not require the court to award maintenance adequate to meet all of the needs of the spouse seeking the award even if the other spouse has sufficient resources to provide such support." Bixler v. Bixler, 810 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Mo.App. 1991). We are ultimately unable to evaluate Wife's claim because, as discussed earlier, the trial court inconsistently has treated the debt payments as both property division and maintenance.

  10. In re the Marriage of Petersen

    22 S.W.3d 760 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 16 times

    The trial court's division of property is presumed correct and appellant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption. Bixler v. Bixler, 810 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Mo.App. 1991). Equal division of property is not required, but the division of property should be fair, taking into account the factors enumerated in Section 452.330.1, RSMo 1994. Carter v.Carter, 940 S.W.2d 12, 16 (Mo.App. 1997).