Kratzer v. Kratzer

5 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. Davis

    582 S.W.3d 100 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times
    Dismissing an appeal from a dissolution property division under the "invited error" principle because the appellant affirmatively stated that she did not object to the proposed property division

    "The party challenging the dissolution decree has the burden of demonstrating error."Kratzer v. Kratzer , 520 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (citations omitted).Analysis

  2. Dickerson v. Dickerson

    580 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times
    Recognizing a monetary award is appropriate where necessary to affect a fair and equitable distribution

    In determining whether to award maintenance, the court must conduct a two-step analysis. Kratzer v. Kratzer , 520 S.W.3d 809 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). First, the court must find the spouse seeking maintenance: "(1) Lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to him, to provide for his reasonable needs; and (2) Is unable to support himself through appropriate employment or is the custodian of a child whose condition or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the home."

  3. Hurst v. Hurst

    553 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    The trial court values marital property at the time of trial. Kratzer v. Kratzer, 520 S.W.3d 809, 818 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). "When the trial court’s valuation of property is within the range of conflicting evidence of value offered at trial, the court acts within its discretion to resolve conflicts in evidence." Taylor v. Taylor, 25 S.W.3d 634, 644 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (citing Wofford v. Wofford, 991 S.W.2d 194 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) ). While the trial court is permitted to make its own determination of the fair market value of the marital property, it is prohibited from finding a fair market value that is not supported by the evidence.

  4. Schubert v. Schubert (In re Marriage of Schubert)

    561 S.W.3d 787 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 6 times

    We observe some references in the case law to the effect that the sole prerequisite for an award of maintenance is proof of a spouse’s unmet "reasonable needs" per section 452.335.1 (the factors in section 452.335.2 being excluded for this purpose)—thus, if section 452.335.1 is satisfied, there should be some award of maintenance, and the only question is the amount (for which the section 452.335.2 factors are considered). See , e.g. , Kratzer v. Kratzer , 520 S.W.3d 809, 814 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) ; Brooks v. Brooks , 957 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). We interpret such language as a recognition that for a trial court to make an award of maintenance, it is necessary (but not sufficient ) that the requesting spouse demonstrate unmet reasonable needs.

  5. Dubroc v. Dubroc

    537 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    Even if Ms. Dubroc's brief were reviewed, ex gratia , her grievance seems to be that the trial court did not believe her evidence as opposed to Mr. Dubroc's. The standard of review in dissolution cases requires this court to defer to the trial court's credibility findings when conflicting evidence exists in the record. Kratzer v. Kratzer , 520 S.W.3d 809, 818 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).The appeal is dismissed.