Finnical v. Finnical

14 Citing cases

  1. Nelson v. Nelson

    25 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 83 times
    In Nelson, the trial court ordered both parties to carry health insurance for the child and in its Form 14 calculation ordered father to pay a proportionate share of the cost of mother's policy.

    The division of marital property need not be equal, but must only be fair and equitable given the circumstances of the case. Finnical v. Finnical , 992 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Mo.App. 1999); Gendron , 996 S.W.2d at 673. "That one party is awarded a higher percentage of marital assets does not per se constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion."

  2. Sporleder v. Sporleder

    655 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    S.M.S. , 588 S.W.3d at 485 (citing Torrey v. Torrey , 333 S.W.3d 34, 36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) ). "The division of marital property need not be equal, but must only be fair and equitable given the circumstances of the case." Nelson v. Nelson , 25 S.W.3d 511, 517 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (citing Finnical v. Finnical , 992 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Mo. App. 1999) and Gendron v. Gendron , 996 S.W.2d 668, 673 (Mo. App. 1999) ). We note that "in reviewing a court-tried dissolution case, our Court is predominately concerned with the correctness of the trial court's ruling rather than the route taken to reach it."

  3. Greiner v. Greiner

    146 S.W.3d 442 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 12 times

    To assist in meeting their reasonable needs, a party has a duty to seek full-time employment after a divorce. Finnical v. Finnical, 992 S.W.2d 337, 340 (Mo.App. 1999). The trial court can consider factors that would affect the party's ability to find appropriate employment and earn a sufficient income to meet his or her reasonable needs.

  4. Stidham v. Stidham

    136 S.W.3d 74 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 11 times
    In Stidham, Mr. Stidham admitted that the house was built in contemplation of marriage and that he intended it to be marital property.

    And the fact that one spouse's income is greater than the other's does not compel an award of attorney's fees. Adams v. Adams, 51 S.W.3d 541, 549 (Mo.App. 2001). Mrs. Stidham's conduct during the marriage may have been exemplary, as she claims, but she does not say her husband's wasn't, and there was no evidence of misconduct on his part during the marriage, such as adultery or abuse. Finnical v. Finnical, 992 S.W.2d 337 (Mo.App. 1999), does not support Mrs. Stidham's claim that she is entitled to attorney's fees. In Finnical, the wife was awarded $3,000 in attorney's fees, though the total she owed her attorney was $17,000; the trial court did not find this total to be unreasonable.

  5. Finnical v. Finnical

    81 S.W.3d 554 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 15 times
    Stating that an appellate court must first address briefing deficiencies to determine, sua sponte, its own jurisdiction

    The respondent appealed the trial court's judgment of dissolution to this court, challenging the court's distribution of marital property, its denial of her request for maintenance, and its award to her of only $3,000 in attorney's fees. In Finnical v. Finnical , 992 S.W.2d 337, 345 (Mo.App. 1999), we reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause to the court for its "reconsideration of the issues of maintenance and assessing the value and possible division of two retirement plans, and reverse[d] the circuit court's award of attorney fees with instructions that it reconsider the issue after determining the parties' ability to pay attorney fees." Upon remand, the trial court heard evidence on April 21, 2000, concerning the issues of maintenance, division of marital property, and attorney's fees.

  6. Thomas v. Thomas

    76 S.W.3d 295 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 18 times
    Remanding with instructions to impute income

    "Appropriate employment" is employment that is appropriate to a person's skills and interests. Finnical v. Finnical, 992 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Mo.App.W.D. 1999). "A court should consider the obligation of a spouse to contribute to his or her own support."

  7. Conrad v. Conrad

    76 S.W.3d 305 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 56 times
    Declaring that "the appropriate date for valuing marital property in a dissolution proceeding is the date of trial"

    Such expenditures have been held to be legitimate expenditures of marital assets, as would be the case if the parties had not separated. Finnical v. Finnical, 992 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Mo.App. 1999). Thus, as Wife further contends, the trial court could only have charged her with the proceeds if the record would support the fact that she was secreting or had squandered the settlement proceeds.

  8. Wagoner v. Wagoner

    76 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 3 times
    Holding husband's "dictatorial and repressive" conduct was sufficient to support a finding marriage irretrievably broken

    When the trial court does not have sufficient evidence of property value, the property award must be reversed and remanded for the court to hear additional evidence concerning the property. Finnical v. Finnical , 992 S.W.2d 337, 344 (Mo.App.W.D. 1999). Proper valuation is essential to achieving a just division of property .SeeBrock v. Brock, 936 S.W.2d 882, 885 (Mo.App.E.D. 1997)

  9. In re Marriage of Cranor

    78 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that retirement benefits are marital property because they would be a form of deferred compensation funded by money earned during the parties' marriage

    A trial court may impute income to a spouse based upon what he or she could earn using his or her best efforts to gain employment suitable to his or her capabilities. Finnical v. Finnical, 992 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Mo.App. 1999). "`Appropriate employment' is employment `appropriate to [a person's] skills and interests.'"

  10. State v. Juarez

    26 S.W.3d 346 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 15 times
    Noting that, under ยง558.019.4, a life sentence is considered 30 years for purposes of parole

    Since Thummel v. King , 570 S.W.2d 679, 685-86 (Mo.banc 1978), it has been clear that an abstract statement of law such as this is inadequate. Rather, the point must set out wherein and why the action of the trial court was wrong by relating the law to the facts of the particular case. See, e.g., Warren v. State , 2 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999); Finnical v. Finnical , 992 S.W.2d 337, 342 (Mo.App.W.D. 1999); State v. Cardona-Rivera , 975 S.W.2d 200, 203 (Mo.App.S.D. 1998); State v. Huckleberry , 823 S.W.2d 82, 85 (Mo.App.W.D. 1991); State v. Jones , 786 S.W.2d 926, 927-28 (Mo.App.W.D. 1990). This point fails to do so. It says that it is a constitutional violation for the court to rely on these statements, but it does not say why it is so, or what statement was made.