We will not disturb the trial court's determinations unless they are not supported by substantial evidence, are against the weight of the evidence, or the trial court erroneously declared or applied the law. Evans v. Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523, 526 (Mo.App.W.D. 2001). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and disregard all evidence to the contrary.
The judgment of the trial court in a dissolution proceeding will be affirmed on appeal unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976); Evans v. Evans , 45 S.W.3d 523, 526 (Mo.App.W.D. 2001). The evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, and all evidence contrary to the judgment is disregarded.
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision and disregard all evidence to the contrary. Evans v. Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523, 526 (Mo. App. 2001). Discussion
In all of those cases, the courts have unequivocally held that an order for payment of debt in a dissolution decree should not be characterized as maintenance where it is actually an aspect of the property division. See, e.g., Evans v. Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523, 528 (Mo.App. 2001). These cases have resolved the problem in a variety of different ways based upon their own unique set of circumstances.
"[T]he trial court is granted broad discretion in determining whether an award of attorney fees is appropriate and determining the amount of that award." Evans v.Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523, 532 (Mo.App.W.D. 2001). "The trial court's decision shall not be disturbed unless that decision constitutes an abuse of discretion."
"The trial court has broad discretion in evaluating the merits of each party's expense claims." Evans v. Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523, 529-30 (Mo.App. 2001). While the trial court did not make specific findings as to Wife's reasonable needs, the trial court did find "that the bank accounts awarded to petitioner will assist in providing for her needs;" that Wife "is able to earn between $1,200 and $1,800 per month as a hairdresser;" and that Wife's "reasonable needs can be met by the apportioned marital property, petitioner's employment as a hairdresser, and $200 per month maintenance."
The trial court is granted broad discretion in granting maintenance and in the division of property. Evans v. Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523, 526 (Mo.App.W.D. 2001). On these matters, an appellate court will interfere with the trial court's allocation only if it is so unduly weighted in favor of one party that it constitutes an abuse of discretion.
The trial court has broad discretion in awarding maintenance. Evans v. Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523, 526 (Mo.App.W.D.2001). “The trial court abuses its discretion only when its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock one's sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.”
Vinson v. Adams, 192 S.W.3d 492, 494 (Mo.App.E.D.2006). The trial court is granted broad discretion in the division of property, granting of maintenance, and awarding of attorney's fees; as such, we review those decisions for abuse of discretion. Schuh v. Schuh, 271 S.W.3d 35, 37 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) (citing Evans v. Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523, 526 (Mo.App.W.D.2001) ); Wilson v. Wilson, 642 S.W.2d 132, 136 (Mo.App.W.D.1982). Upon review of the record, we agree with the parties that the trial court's decision is arbitrary and without evidence to support it in every aspect.
This practice has found favor in other jurisdictions throughout the United States when a trial court has imputed income to an underemployed or unemployed spouse. See, Evans v. Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523 (Mo. App. 2001) (imputing income to a spouse requesting maintenance); Stirewalt v. Stirewalt, 307 S.W.3d 701 (Mo. App. 2010) (imputing income to a spouse required to pay maintenance); LeRoy v. LeRoy, 600 N.W.2d 729 (Minn.App. 1999) (a court may consider past earnings and earning capacity to estimate future income in determining ability to pay maintenance); Steinberg v. Steinberg, 59 A.D.3d 702, 874 N.Y.S.2d 230 (N.Y. 2009) (may impute income based upon a party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings).