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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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).
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.
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.
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.
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).