IN RE: the MARRIAGE OF: B.P.K. AND L.A.G.; (2026)

L.A.G.¹ (Wife) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri, (motion court) which reduced B.P.K.’s (Husband) maintenance obligation from $10,200.00 to $1,500.00 per month. The judgment is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background 2

Husband and Wife were married in March 2006. Both parties have children from prior marriages but no children together. The parties separated in June 2017, and the marriage was dissolved by a judgment entered in December 2018. In July 2019, the dissolution court entered an amended judgment (dissolution judgment). Relevant to this appeal, the dissolution judgment ordered Husband to pay $10,200.00 per month in modifiable maintenance retroactive to January 1, 2019.

In December 2022, Husband filed a motion to modify maintenance or, in the alternative, terminate maintenance. Husband alleged that there were substantial and continuing changes in circumstances that rendered the prior judgment unreasonable, such as:

(a) It is the public policy of this State that economically dependent spouses have a duty to utilize their best efforts to become self-sufficient.

(b) The financial condition of [Wife] has improved in that [her] child ․ age twenty-two (22), is emancipated and no longer economically dependent upon [Wife] or eligible for support.

(c) Maintenance is not intended to assist in [the] provision of support for any children, much less emancipated children that were not born of the marriage.

(d) [Wife] is capable of meeting her own reasonable needs through income received from appropriate employment.

(e) ․ [Wife] has undertaken no efforts to become self-sufficient and is not disabled from substantial, gainful employment.

(f) ․ [Wife] has accumulated savings and or increased net worth since December 28, 2018, as the recipient of maintenance and such sum award is beyond her demonstrated needs.

Wife filed a counter motion in which she requested an increase in maintenance to allow her to meet her reasonable living expenses. She also requested that Husband pay her attorney's fees. To support her request, Wife cited a change in circumstances including, but not limited to, Husband's income increasing since the dissolution judgment and Wife's inability to meet her reasonable needs despite obtaining employment and taking steps to reduce her expenses.

Following a bench trial, the motion court found the current maintenance amount was unreasonable, and it decreased the amount to $1,500.00 per month and ordered that each party pay their own attorney's fees. Wife filed a motion to amend the judgment which was denied.

Wife appeals. Additional facts relevant to the disposition of the appeal are included in our discussion infra.

Standard of Review

“In a court-tried action to modify a maintenance award, we conduct our review in accordance with the standards enunciated in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).” Davis v. Davis, 613 S.W.3d 414, 418 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). Therefore, we will affirm the motion court's judgment unless it is “not supported by the evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or [it] erroneously declares or applies the law.” Id. (citation omitted). When determining whether the motion court misapplied the law, we review the court's legal conclusions and its application of the law to the facts de novo. Cullen v. Bernstein, 694 S.W.3d 494, 498 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024). “A misapplication of the law constitutes reversible error if it materially affects the merits of the action such that we have a firm belief the judgment is wrong.” Id. We view the evidence and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn in the light most favorable to the motion court's judgment, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. Serot v. Serot, 536 S.W.3d 771, 778 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).

Discussion

Wife raises three points on appeal. First, the motion court erred in reducing Husband's maintenance obligation because (1) he failed to prove a change in circumstances justifying the reduction; (2) Wife's needs exceed the income available to her; (3) the motion court incorrectly considered expenditures of assets awarded to Wife in the dissolution; and (4) employment income was improperly imputed to Wife. Second, the motion court erred in reducing Husband's maintenance obligation because the mathematics used to calculate the award are incorrect and do not allow Wife to meet her reasonable needs. Third, the motion court erred in not ordering Husband to pay Wife's attorney's fees because it misapplied the law and abused its discretion. We address each point in turn as well as the Rule 84.04 briefing deficiencies found throughout Wife's appellate brief.

Point One

In Wife's first point on appeal, she argues that the motion court erred in reducing Husband's maintenance obligation because he (1) failed to prove a change in circumstances justifying the level of reduction; (2) Wife's needs exceed the income available to her; (3) the motion court incorrectly considered expenditures of assets which were awarded to Wife in the dissolution and such consideration was an impermissible modification of the dissolution judgment; and (4) employment income was improperly imputed to Wife.

First, we note that Wife's point on appeal violates Rule 84.04 because it is multifarious by consolidating multiple, independent claims into one point and it also fails to specify which Murphy v. Carron basis applies to her alleged claim of error. See D.S.G. v. Gue, 735 S.W.3d 595, 600 (Mo. App. W.D. 2026). “[T]o comply with the rules of appellate procedure in Rule 84.04, a point on appeal must proceed under one of the Murphy v. Carron grounds, each of which requires a distinct analytical framework.” Lin v. Clark, 666 S.W.3d 270, 277 n.9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (citation omitted). The failure to identify which Murphy v. Carron ground applies warrants dismissal of the point. See id. We “have discretion to review non-compliant briefs ex gratia when the argument is readily understandable.” Id. (citation omitted). In her reply brief, Wife clarifies she is asserting the motion court misapplied the law and, therefore, we will use our discretion to review point one as a misapplication-of-the-law challenge.

Maintenance is for the reasonable needs of the receiving spouse and is not awarded for the purpose of building an estate or accumulating capital. Arndt v. Arndt, 519 S.W.3d 890, 900 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). Although the marital standard of living may guide the computation of a spouse's reasonable needs when one spouse has forgone career development, “an excessive standard of living does not equate to reasonable needs[.]” Calhoun v. Calhoun, 156 S.W.3d 410, 415 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (citation omitted). “[A] court is not required to award maintenance to meet all of a spouse's needs even if the other spouse has sufficient resources to provide such support.” Id. Instead, the purpose of maintenance is to allow the receiving spouse to “readjust financially during a period of dependency” and to provide support until “he or she can become self-sufficient.” Id.

Under section 452.370.1, “the provisions of any judgment respecting maintenance or support may be modified only upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable.”³ To determine whether a substantial change in circumstances occurred, the motion court “shall consider all financial resources of both parties, including the extent to which the reasonable expenses of either party are, or should be, shared by a spouse or other person with whom he or she cohabits, and the earning capacity of a party who is not employed.” § 452.370.1. The change in circumstances must be unknown and unforeseeable at the time the original judgment was entered and, in effect, a maintenance modification is only permitted if the change involves a departure from prior known conditions, including those that are known at the time of the dissolution. Wagner v. Wagner, 542 S.W.3d 334, 339 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).

In modifying a maintenance order, a court may consider the factors in section 452.335.2 ⁴ that the dissolution court was required to consider when determining maintenance at dissolution. Arndt, 519 S.W.3d at 899-900. In addition, Missouri courts have recognized that “substantial changed circumstances warranting modification or termination of a maintenance award include the failure of the recipient spouse to make reasonable efforts to obtain employment and become self-supporting after the divorce.” Almuttar v. Almuttar, 479 S.W.3d 135, 138 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (citation omitted). If the recipient spouse fails to seek or obtain employment following the divorce, the party may show good cause as to why they should not be required to seek employment to avoid termination of the maintenance award. Id. at 138-39.

Following a bench trial, the motion court made the following findings.⁵ From 2017 through September 2023, Wife earned no income and did not attempt to secure employment until nine months after Husband filed his motion to modify. Wife accepted her first job in September 2023 and voluntarily left the job in July 2024 because of a purported conflict of interest. She enrolled in an online class to assist her in obtaining her realtor's license but had not completed the course as of the bench trial. Wife maintained a pattern of spending nearly double that of Husband's annual maintenance payment of $122,400, with Wife spending $267,000.00 and $202,932.61 in 2022 and 2023, respectively. The motion court concluded that Wife's “passive receipt of substantial maintenance demonstrates minimal interest in becoming self-sufficient” and modification was warranted on that basis alone.

Additionally, Husband alleged that Wife used maintenance payments to support her daughter (Daughter) when Missouri law clearly states that awards of spousal maintenance and child support are entirely distinct. Schubert v. Schubert, 366 S.W.3d 55, 64 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). Maintenance is limited to the recipient's needs and, therefore, a child's needs such as college expenses should not be included in maintenance. Courtney v. Courtney, 458 S.W.3d 462, 477 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). The motion court noted that Wife should have been aware of the validity of this allegation because her attorney had received an expert's report delineating the expenses traceable to Daughter, yet she continued to spend her maintenance funds on child-related expenses. Following entry of the dissolution judgment, Wife paid approximately $155,703.00 toward Daughter's tuition and living expenses from maintenance payments.

The motion court also made the following findings under the relevant section 452.335 factors to explain its rationale for its conclusions. At the time of the dissolution, Wife owned a fully furnished and remodeled three-bedroom home valued at $235,000.00 and was awarded a late model Mercedes SUV, both free of debt which the motion court noted she failed to put to productive use as contemplated by the dissolution court. After Daughter decided to attend the University of Kentucky, Wife purchased a home in Lexington, Kentucky, for $455,000.00 to qualify for in-state tuition. Daughter did not receive in-state tuition for the first year and Wife owned two houses from March 2019 through October 2019. Additionally, Daughter's father was required to contribute to tuition expenses and Wife testified that Daughter received scholarships. Wife did not have a job or any prior connection to Lexington and, by selling the marital home in Missouri, she could no longer rent the property for the rental income the dissolution court attributed to her. The dissolution court also assumed Wife would invest the $303,273.31 equalization payment she was awarded. Instead, Wife paid her litigation expenses and bought the new house for $455,000.00, owned two homes for nine months without pursuing employment, spent $57,708.69 on décor, $113,902.23 on maintenance and gardening, and $155,703.00 on Daughter's tuition and living expenses. Husband's expert opined that Wife spent money at a rate consistent with someone earning well over $1,000,000.00 annually. Accordingly, the motion court found that Wife's decision-making and spending habits substantially contributed to the depletion of her financial resources.

Wife was voluntarily unemployed in the years following the dissolution which was estimated to have cost her $179,166.00. Wife is capable of earning $34,130.00 assuming she had not worked, or $54,813.00 if she had gained job-related experience. The motion court concluded that Wife had sufficient time to seek education or training but, until recently, made little effort to achieve earnings matching her spending patterns.

Regarding earning capacity, the motion court found that Husband's income is sufficient to pay the $10,200.00 monthly maintenance but Wife should be earning $54,813.00 annually.

The motion court acknowledged that Wife filed an income and expense statement as to what she thought she was entitled to, but it noted that a reasonable need for maintenance purposes is not based on entitlement nor is the motion court required to accept her expenses as true.⁶ See Calhoun, 156 S.W.3d at 416.

Regarding the duration of marriage, the parties were married for eleven years and Husband timely paid maintenance for six years—more than half of the marriage's length. Also, Wife made minimal effort to become self-sufficient or contribute to her own needs during most of that time.

In sum, the motion court found that Wife's estimate of her reasonable needs was “unrealistically high” because she was able to fund Daughter's college education, elected not to work full-time after the marriage was dissolved, and had been living comfortably on the current monthly maintenance. The motion court found that Wife spent almost twice her $10,200.00 monthly maintenance, commensurate with a person earning $1,000,000.00 annually, and made no effort until recently to seek employment or improve her employment prospects. After considering the evidence, the motion court found that Wife's reasonable monthly needs were between $7,000.00 and $7,500.00 and she can contribute to those needs by working full-time.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the motion court's judgment, the motion court did not err in finding that there was a substantial change in circumstances making the continuation of the current maintenance amount unreasonable. First, the dissolution court imputed an annual gross wage of $25,136.00 to Wife based on a vocational expert's assessment. However, during the bench trial, Wife testified that she anticipated making $35,000.00 upon completing her real estate broker training and the motion court also heard evidence that she could earn up to $54,813.00. The motion court imputed an annual income of $54,813.00—nearly $30,000.00 more than the annual income imputed by the dissolution court.

Wife argues that her unemployment was known at the time of the dissolution and, therefore, cannot represent a change in circumstances. While Wife was unemployed when the dissolution judgment was entered, the dissolution court clearly anticipated Wife would obtain some sort of employment by imputing an annual gross income of $25,136.00. Additionally, the dissolution court noted that Wife's equalization payment of $303,273.31 could be invested to earn interest income and that the awarded Missouri property could be rented for additional income. Wife's tax returns showed no rental income. Wife's failure to make a reasonable effort to obtain employment and become self-supporting after the dissolution is a substantial changed circumstance. See Almuttar, 479 S.W.3d at 138.

On top of Wife's failure to make a reasonable effort to obtain employment, the dissolution court anticipated that Wife would either rent the Missouri property for income or sell the property to apply the proceeds to the purchase of a new home, but she instead purchased a second home and owned two properties from March through October 2019, incurring expenses for both. And although the dissolution court found Wife's reasonable needs to be $10,000.00 per month, Wife spent at a rate well in excess of that and consistent with an individual making $1,000,000.00 annually. Such excessive spending is well beyond Wife's reasonable needs. See Calhoun, 156 S.W.3d at 415 (stating that “an excessive standard of living does not equate to reasonable needs under the statute”). Last, it was not foreseeable that Wife would spend $155,702.75 toward Daughter's tuition and living expenses from maintenance payments when the maintenance payments were to be limited to Wife's needs, and not for the care and support of Daughter. See Schubert, 366 S.W.3d at 64. Simply put, the totality of Wife's voluntary unemployment, excessive spending, and unauthorized utilization of maintenance payments on child-related expenses constituted substantial changed circumstances justifying a decrease in maintenance. The motion court did not err in reducing Husband's maintenance obligation and, as such, a reduction was not a misapplication of the law.

Point one is denied.

Point Two

In Wife's second point on appeal, she argues that the motion court erred in reducing Husband's maintenance obligation because the motion court used “incorrect mathematical calculations” resulting in a maintenance award that does not allow Wife to meet her reasonable needs and, thus, the modification was impermissible.

Once again, Wife's second point on appeal violates Rule 84.04 because it fails to specify the relevant Murphy v. Carron ground that applies to her alleged claim of error. However, unlike Wife's argument for point one, her argument for point two does not make the ground she is applying readily discernible as she specifically argues that the modification judgment “is not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, erroneously declares and applies the law, and is an abuse of discretion.” Wife makes no attempt in her argument under point two to apply any of these standards appropriately. Because Wife's failure to identify the applicable Murphy ground warrants dismissal, point two is denied. See Lin, 666 S.W.3d at 277 n.9.

Point Three

In Wife's third point on appeal, she argues that the motion court erred in not ordering Husband to pay Wife's attorney's fees because it misapplied the law in section 452.355 and abused its discretion when the merits of the case weigh in Wife's favor and Husband has substantial assets to pay.⁷

The trial court has broad discretion to award or deny a party's request for attorney's fees, and we will not overturn a trial court's order absent a showing that it abused its broad discretion in ordering, or refusing to order, a party to pay the attorney's fees of another. Goins v. Goins, 406 S.W.3d 886, 891 (Mo. banc 2013).

Parties to domestic relations cases are generally responsible for paying their own attorney's fees. Id.; Borchardt v. Borchardt, 496 S.W.3d 635, 642 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). However:

[T]he court from time to time after considering all relevant factors including the financial resources of both parties, the merits of the case and the actions of the parties during the pendency of the action, may order a party to pay a reasonable amount for the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding pursuant to sections 452.300 to 452.415 and for attorney's fees, including sums for legal services rendered and costs incurred prior to the commencement of the proceeding and after entry of a final judgment.

§ 452.355.1. The fact that one spouse's income is greater does not compel an award of attorney's fees. Stidham v. Stidham, 136 S.W.3d 74, 83 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). We will find a court abused its discretion only when the complaining party demonstrates the court's award was against the logic of the circumstances and was so arbitrary and unreasonable that it shocks the sense of justice. Bitters v. Olive, 691 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (citation omitted).

The motion court did not abuse its discretion in ordering both parties to pay their own attorney's fees. Based on our discussion supra, we do not find that the merits of the case weigh in Wife's favor. Ultimately, Wife's actions such as failing to secure employment and utilizing maintenance payments for child-related expenses prompted Husband to file the motion to modify, and he prevailed. Therefore, ordering Husband and Wife to pay their own respective attorney's fees—when parties in domestic relations cases are generally required to do so—was not against the logic of the circumstances nor was it arbitrary and unreasonable.⁸

Point three is denied.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the motion court's judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Husband filed a motion to use the parties’ initials in lieu of their names. That motion was taken with the case, and the motion is granted.

3.   All statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri (2016), as supplemented.

4.   All relevant factors include:(1) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to him, and his ability to meet his needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party as custodian;(2) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment;(3) The comparative earning capacity of each spouse;(4) The standard of living established during the marriage;(5) The obligations and assets, including the marital property apportioned to him and the separate property of each party;(6) The duration of the marriage;(7) The age, and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance;(8) The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance;(9) The conduct of the parties during the marriage; and(10) Any other relevant factors.

5.   We are unable to locate many of the exhibits entered into evidence that the motion court references throughout its factual findings in our record on appeal. Therefore, we rely on the motion court's findings of fact in our review of the points on appeal.

6.   Wife initially claimed that her total monthly expenses were $15,406.00 and later filed an amended statement in which she claimed her total average monthly expenses were $16,732.80. We note that the dissolution court found Wife's reasonable needs to be $10,000.00 per month, that, at the time, she was capable of earning $1,700.00 per month, that she could earn approximately $600.00 per month in interest earned from the equalization payment, and, based on that, needed $7,700.00 in monthly maintenance, net of taxes.

7.   Wife's third point on appeal is multifarious because it alleges the motion court misapplied the law and abused its discretion and, therefore, consolidates multiple, independent claims into one point. D.S.G. v. Gue, 735 S.W.3d 595, 600 (Mo. App. W.D. 2026).

8.   We note Husband contends that Wife's third point was not preserved for appeal because she did not raise the issue before the motion court. Following the motion court's entry of judgment, Wife requested that the motion court reconsider its judgment in a pleading titled, “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment.” Albeit titled incorrectly, Wife explicitly argued in the pleading that “the [motion court] must address either a significant increase in maintenance to offset the attorney's fee issue, or reconsider the decision to have [Husband] not contribute to [Wife's] legal fees.” Therefore, contrary to Husband's suggestion, Wife sufficiently called attention to this alleged error and gave the motion court an opportunity to rule on it.

Janet Sutton, Judge

Alok Ahuja, P.J., and Thomas N. Chapman, J. concur.