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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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)
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.'"
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.