Schrauth v. Schrauth
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County to the Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
No. ED109631
Outcome: Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
The parties, E. Schrauth (hereinafter “Husband”) and S. Schrauth (hereinafter “Wife”) were divorced pursuant on January 24, 2020 after the parties entered into a negotiated marital settlement agreement. In preparing the Dissolution Judgment, the Parties used a four-page form document made available to litigants in Missouri courts (Form CCFC187-11/09), and all appropriate blanks were completed.
Paragraph 14 of the marital settlement agreement discussed Husband’s obligation to pay maintenance to Wife. The parties handwrote on the Judgment of Dissolution form that Husband would pay Wife $800/month in maintenance and noted that this provision was not subject to modification. The italicized portions of the foregoing were handwritten in the appropriate blanks. In addition, on the blank line directly below paragraph 14, the Parties handwrote the following: “Maintenance from 2/2020 through 2/2021 shall be $800.00. Thereafter shall be $1000.00 until Wife can collect social security by existing law.”
The Judgment of Dissolution also incorporated the parties’ marital settlement agreement. However, the marital settlement agreement was silent as to whether or not $1,000/month maintenance was modifiable.
On November 10, 2020, Husband filed his Motion to Modify which requested among other things that the circuit court enter an order modifying the Dissolution Judgment as and terminate his spousal maintenance obligation.
The basis for the Motion to Modify was a purported “substantial and sustained” change in circumstances, to wit: (1) that Wife’s received a substantial inheritance from the death of her mother; (2) that Wife has procured employment and had a substantial increase in income; and (3) that Wife inherited her deceased mother’s condominium, which is fully paid off, and which she now resides in rent free. Thus, Husband argued that the foregoing facts rendered his continued payment of spousal maintenance to Wife “unjust and unreasonable.” In Response, Wife filed a Motion to Dismiss.
When Husband’s Motion to Modify was heard by the trial court, he argued that because the Separation Agreement was silent on the issue of the modifiability of his maintenance obligation, specifically $1000/month in maintenance payments. it is presumed to be modifiable pursuant to § 452.335.3. Furthermore, the issue of modifiability is controlled by the Separation Agreement, not the Dissolution Judgment, pursuant to Brucker v. Brucker, 611 S.W.2d 293 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).
The trial court denied Husband’s Motion to Modify and granted Wife’s Motion to Dismiss.
Husband then filed an appeal. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s ruling. In its opinion, the Appellate Court noted as follows:
. . . there is not a direct conflict between the Dissolution Judgment and the Separation Agreement; rather, as previously noted, the Dissolution Judgment contains the Non-modifiability Provision, whereas the Separation Agreement is simply silent on the issue of modifiability. Therefore, Hughes controls our analysis of this case, and compels a finding that the Dissolution Judgment likewise generally governs the modifiability of [Husband’s] maintenance obligations.
The Appellate Court also emphasized that, “Accordingly, given the absence of any such exemption language in paragraph 14 of the Dissolution Judgment, Eric’s $1,000 monthly maintenance obligation was likewise rendered non-modifiable per the clear and unambiguous terms of the completed Dissolution Judgment.”
