Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.330

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable distribution of marital property, but does not require each spouse to receive the property they want.

Steinmeyer v. Steinmeyer · filed 1984-04-10

Section 452.330, RSMo 1978, requires a fair and equitable distribution of marital property. It does not require that each party get what he or she wanted.

Section 452.330 gives the court broad authority to divide marital property through a sale, exchange, conveyance, or other disposition.

In Re Marriage of Goodding · filed 1984-09-11

The powers of the court under § 452.330 are broad — it may not only order a sale, but can decree an exchange or conveyance, “or other such dispositions — either between the spouses or with a third person.”

Section 452.330.1 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property, but does not require an equal division.

Marriage of Featherston v. Featherston · filed 1986-03-18(1)

The statute requires a fair and equitable division of the marital property, but does not require an equal division.

Section 452.330(4) makes a final order dividing marital property unmodifiable.

Gehm v. Gehm · filed 1986-04-01(4)

452.330.4, RSMo Supp.1984. The decree was final — the court had no jurisdiction to reopen a final judgment and change its provisions. The attempt to do so is void and of no effect.

Section 452.330 permits a nearly equal division of marital property when it is fair, equitable, and supported by substantial evidence.

Youngblood v. Youngblood · filed 1986-09-02

The division of property here was fair and equitable. Section 452.330, RSMo (1978).

Section 452.330 permits an unequal division of marital property when the disposition is supported by substantial evidence.

Willenbrink v. Willenbrink · filed 1987-05-05

We find no error of fact or law under § 452.330 RSMo Cum.Supp.1984 relating to a disposition of marital property. The decision of the trial court as a matter of fact and law is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 452.330.1 permits unequal divisions of marital property, but the division must be just.

Balven v. Balven · filed 1987-07-071

There is no requirement under Section 452.330.1 RSMo 1986 that the division be equal, ... but it must be just. ... On the present record it was unjust to entirely deprive husband of all interest in the real property.

Section 452.330 gives trial courts broad discretion to divide marital property justly and equitably, subject to review for abuse of discretion or legal error.

Russell v. Russell · filed 1987-10-20(1)(3)

The trial court has broad discretion to divide the marital property as it deems just and equitable. § 452.330.1(3) RSMo 1986. Our only inquiry into this matter is whether the division is so disproportionate as to amount to an abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property, though the division need not be equal.

Petty v. Petty · filed 1987-11-03(1)

In dividing marital property, the trial court is required to make a just division; but it need not make an equal division.

Section 452.330 requires a just and equitable division of marital property in light of the parties’ circumstances and the statutory factors.

Hahn v. Hahn · filed 1987-11-17

Section 452.330 RSMo 1986 requires the trial court to make the property division just and equitable in light of the particular circumstances of the parties and the statutory factors to be taken into consideration.

Section 452.330 permits cash payments to achieve a just division of marital property when dividing property in kind is impossible or imprudent, without tying the payment to a particular asset.

Manor v. Manor · filed 1986-03-18

A court may order cash payments to effect a just division of marital property. This device may be employed when it is impossible or imprudent to divide property in kind and is permissible without linking the cash transfer to any particular asset.

Section 452.330.1 permits a court to place a lien on a spouse’s separate property when necessary to secure a just division of marital property.

Costley v. Costley · filed 1986-09-11(1)

Considering all relevant factors, the trial court determined a just division of the marital property could be had only by the imposition of á lien upon the separate property of the husband. That determination is supported by the evidence. In such circumstances, the imposition of a lien of the nature previously discussed may be imposed upon the separate property of a spouse.

Section 452.330.1 requires the court to divide marital property in just proportions before considering a sale.

Parker v. Parker · filed 1987-12-151

The rule implements the directive of the statute which requires the court to make a division of property exercising its judgment to determine from the evidence what division will be just. Only after the court has made that proportional allocation may the necessity for a sale be considered.

Section 452.330(1)(4) makes the parties’ conduct during the marriage a factor in dividing marital property.

In Re Marriage of Medlock · filed 1988-04-20(1)(4)

In dividing marital property, one of the factors to be considered by a trial court is the conduct of the parties during the marriage. § 452.330(1)(4), RSMo 1986. ... Given the discretion conferred on the trial court in dividing marital property, we cannot convict the trial court of error in its apportionment of the assets in the instant case.

Section 452.330.1 requires evidence sufficient to value marital property fairly, even when the trial court does not assign values to individual assets.

Bidstrup v. Bidstrup · filed 1988-05-24(1)

Trial courts must divide marital property after considering the criteria set out in § 452.330.1, RSMo 1986. ... Although the trial court need no longer assign values to the marital property, there must be evidence before the court from which a fair and accurate valuation of the property may be made. ... The trial court made no effort to value the pension and it had no information upon which a value could be reconstructed.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property, but does not require equal shares.

Morgan v. Morgan · filed 1988-08-23

The trial court in a dissolution proceeding is not required to make an equal distribution of the marital property. It is only required that the distribution be fair and equitable. ... The division of the property including the Richard Morgan Agency, Inc., was just and in accordance with § 452.330 RSMo. (1981).

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property, but does not require an equal division.

Dkl v. Lcl · filed 1988-09-27

In dividing marital property, the trial court is required to make a just division; it need not make an equal division. Ware v. Ware, 647 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo. App.1983); see also Section 452.330, RSMo (1986).

Section 452.330 requires a final disposition of marital property; deferring the sale of a residence until a child’s emancipation does not turn that disposition into a support obligation.

Cook v. Cook · filed 1988-11-01

The decree was not an obligation for support, but instead effected a final disposition of the property as required by § 452.330, RSMo 1986 and by operation of law converted the parties’ ownership to a tenancy in common.

Section 452.330.1 requires the trial court to dispose of all marital property before its dissolution judgment is final and appealable.

Zahabi v. Zahabi · filed 1988-11-01(1)

Because the trial court did not make a full disposition of the marital property as mandated by section 452.330.1, RSMo 1986, the judgment of the trial court is not final and, hence, not appealable.

Section 452.330 generally requires a complete division of marital property in the dissolution decree unless there is a reason to continue joint ownership.

True v. True · filed 1988-12-06

Unless there is some evidence which shows the necessity for continuing a tenancy in common, it is improper for the trial court to leave property vested jointly in the parties after a dissolution. ... This mandate stems from section 452.330, RSMo 1986, which directs the trial court to, “divide the marital property in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors.” ... Accordingly, as the instant case presents no compelling reasons for continuing a tenancy in common, that portion of the trial court’s order is disapproved.

Section 452.330 allows a court to account for one spouse’s payment of the other’s debt when evaluating whether a marital property division is disproportionate.

Schneider v. Schneider · filed 1988-12-13

The wife contends that the trial court failed to correctly apply the statutory factors provided in Sec. 452.330, RSMo 1986, in dividing the marital property and that the award to her was, as a result, disproportionately low. We are unable to find any disproportion in the awards made. Husband received $45,000 in marital property and was required to pay wife’s debt in the amount of $22,000, leaving him with a net award of $23,000. Wife received $3100 in property and was relieved of $22,000 in debt for a net award of $25,100.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property, but does not require an equal division.

Fuqua v. Fuqua · filed 1989-01-17(1)

The statute requires a fair and equitable division of marital property in light of the circumstances in each individual case. ... A fair division is not necessarily an equal one, nor does the statute require an equal division.

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property, taking account of circumstances such as marital misconduct, income, custody, and separate property.

R.D. v. J.D. · filed 1989-02-14

Upon applying the guidelines of § 452.330, RSMo 1986, the court found both parties were guilty of marital misconduct, however wife’s occurred after separation. Wife has a significantly lower income than husband, and she has primary physical custody of the children. In addition, husband was awarded the marital home as his separate property. In light of these factors, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s division of property.

Section 452.330.1 requires a just division of marital property, considering four nonexclusive factors; the division need not be equal.

Buchheit v. Buchheit · filed 1989-04-04(1)

In dividing marital property, the trial court is required to make a just, not equal, division. ... Section 452.330.1, RSMo (1986) ... lists four nonexclusive factors to be considered in making a just division of marital property.

Section 452.330.1 requires a just and equitable division of marital property based on the parties’ circumstances and statutory factors, and permits a disproportionate division when those factors justify it.

Marriage of Preston v. Preston · filed 1989-04-04(1)

The division of marital property is controlled by RSMo § 452.330.1 (1986), which requires the trial court to make the property division just and equitable in light of the particular circumstances of the parties and the statutory factors to be taken into consideration. ... The record in this case justifies a disproportionate distribution of marital property.

Section 452.330.1 requires a just and equitable division of marital property based on the statutory factors; the shares need not be equal.

Marriage of Dove v. Dove · filed 1989-06-271

Under these particular facts, the court, after noting the wide disparity in the distribution of property, cannot say there was an abuse of discretion by Judge Lewis. The division should be just and equitable taking into account the statutory factors.

Section 452.330 permits a decree to divide a marital home by granting one spouse temporary exclusive occupancy and giving each spouse an interest as a tenant in common.

Wright v. Wright · filed 1989-06-27

While the decree in question is not as detailed as it might have been, we find the disposition sufficient for the purposes of Section 452.330. We therefore hold that the decree creates a tenancy in common, the interest of defendant being subject to an exclusive right of occupancy in plaintiff until the occurrence of such contingencies as the decree sets forth.

Section 452.330 requires a just and equitable division of marital property and gives the circuit court broad discretion to allocate property and debts.

Tucker v. Tucker · filed 1989-07-18

Section 452.330, RSMo 1986, only requires a just and equitable division of marital property. The circuit court is vested with broad discretion in determining how and in what manner the property and debts should be divided.

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property based on all relevant factors, including each spouse’s contributions, and calls for consideration of the overall distribution.

Berg v. Berg · filed 1989-07-18(1)

The factors to be considered in dividing property upon marital dissolution is set out by statute, § 452.330 RSMo 1989. The trial court shall divide the marital property as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors such as: (1) the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, (2) the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property, including the contribution of a spouse as homemaker, (3) the value of the non-marital property set apart to each spouse and (4) the conduct of the parties during the marriage.

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property after consideration of the statutory factors, including the spouses’ economic circumstances and conduct during the marriage.

Walling v. Walling · filed 1989-08-29(1)

The court’s division of property reflects a consideration of all the statutory factors, including most prominently the unequal economic circumstances of the spouses. Wife’s age, earning power and state of health place her in a much inferior economic position to that of the husband. Secondarily, husband’s marital misconduct tends to support some weighting on the wife’s side.

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property when the relevant factors justify it.

Ikonomou v. Ikonomou · filed 1989-09-05(1)

A disparity in the value of marital property awarded to each spouse is justified if any of the relevant factors to be considered while dividing such properly justifies an unequal distribution. ... In light of all the evidence, we conclude that the trial court’s distribution of the marital property was fair and equitable and not an abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330 calls for consideration of its factors when dividing marital property; a roughly even division was within the trial court’s discretion.

Gaston v. Gaston · filed 1989-09-12

Wife does not allege that the trial court failed to consider the factors in § 452.330, RSMo 1986. Evidence of husband’s misconduct was controverted and we defer to the trial court’s assessment of credibility. As for the disparity in the parties’ incomes, the record contains evidence that wife is capable of increasing her income. Our review of the record reveals the trial court’s division of property was roughly even, and, depending on the proceeds received from the sale of the residential property, the division could greatly favor wife. The division is hardly an abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330.1 does not authorize a court acting on its own to divide non-marital property.

Kohler v. Blunt · filed 1989-10-10(1)

The trial court, acting on its own, does not have the authority to divide non-marital property. § 452.330.1, RSMo 1975 (Cum.Supp.).

Section 452.330.1 permits a just division of marital property that is unequal, particularly when one spouse has engaged in misconduct.

In re Marriage of Pew · filed 1989-11-29(1)

The court followed the same procedure on the factors to be considered in dividing property as covered in § 452.330.1, RSMo Supp.1988. An examination of the record convinces us that no error of law appears and that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. ... The trial court has discretion in the division of marital property. A just division does not have to be equal. This is particularly true where one party has engaged in misconduct.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property in light of each case’s circumstances, but does not require an equal division.

Jirik v. Jirik · filed 1990-01-24

The statute governing division of marital property in dissolution actions, § 452.330, RSMo Supp.1988, requires a fair and equitable division of the marital property in light of the circumstances attending each individual case; it does not require an equal division of the property.

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property that considers each spouse’s economic circumstances and contributions, including homemaking.

Michael v. Michael · filed 1990-05-01(1)

When applying these guiding principles inherent in § 452.330 to the present case we find that the trial court abused its discretion in its division of marital property.

Section 452.330.1 requires an equitable division of marital property, but the division need not be equal.

Riaz v. Riaz · filed 1990-05-09(1)

In distributing the marital assets, the trial court is required to make an equitable division, but not an equal one.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property in light of each case’s circumstances; the division need not be equal.

Langdon v. Langdon · filed 1990-06-12

The trial court is not required to make an equal division of the marital property, only a fair and equitable division of the marital property in light of the circumstances in each individual case.

Section 452.330 permits a just but unequal division of marital property; the percentage awarded to each spouse alone does not establish an abuse of discretion.

Wef v. Cjf · filed 1990-06-12

It is clear that comparing cases based on percentages awarded a party is fruitless. ... We have reviewed the evidence and the trial court's findings. We find no abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330 permits a just division of marital property that need not be equal; the percentages awarded alone do not establish an abuse of discretion.

Marriage of W.E.F. v. C.J.F. · filed 1990-06-12

It is clear that comparing cases based on percentages awarded a party is fruitless. ... We have reviewed the evidence and the trial court’s findings. We find no abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330 permits an unequal division of marital property when the division is fair and equitable in light of the statutory factors.

Hayes v. Hayes · filed 1990-07-06(1)

The trial court’s division of assets does not have to be an equal or even division; it merely has to be fair and equitable and take into account the statutory factors.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property in light of each case’s circumstances, but does not require an equal division.

In Re Marriage of Stuart · filed 1991-03-05

The division of marital property is governed by § 452.330 RSMo (Supp.1988). That statute requires a fair and equitable division of the marital property in light of the individual circumstances of each case, but does not require an equal division of property.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital assets, but the division need not be equal.

Whitworth v. Whitworth · filed 1991-04-02

A division of marital assets need not be equal but only fair and equitable, pursuant to § 452.330, RSMo 1986.

Section 452.330 permits an unequal division of marital property when the court finds it just after considering relevant factors, including the parties’ conduct during the marriage.

In re the Marriage of Lewis · filed 1991-04-02(1)(4)

The trial court is to “divide the marital property in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors including” certain specified ones. See § 452.330, RSMo Supp.1989. Among those is the conduct of the parties during marriage. § 452.330.1(4), RSMo Supp. 1989. ... Whether the annuity or husband’s interest in Springfield Medical Laboratory are considered as marital property or separate property, in whole or in part, under the evidence the division of property was just.

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property after considering the spouses’ economic circumstances, contributions, separate property, and conduct; the court may revise the division on appeal.

Mehrle v. Mehrle · filed 1991-07-10

This court finds that each party contributed equally to the acquisition of the marital property. ... This court revises the trial court’s distribution of the marital property by deleting that portion of the judgment which awarded the residence to Parker and by deleting that portion of the judgment which awarded Johnnie $22,500.

Section 452.330 requires an equitable division of marital property, which need not be equal.

Marriage of Bushhammer v. Bushhammer · filed 1991-09-17

Appellant correctly cites the rule of law that the trial court is not required to make an equal division of marital property, only an equitable one.

Section 452.330.1 requires a just division of marital property after considering pertinent factors, but the division need not be equal.

Mehra v. Mehra · filed 1991-11-19(1)

The court is to make a just division of property after consideration of pertinent factors such as the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property, the value of the property set apart to each spouse, and the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, § 452.330.1, RSMo 1986, but a “just” division need not be equal.

Section 452.330.4 bars modification of a marital property division, including a later maintenance reduction that effectively offsets pension benefits awarded as marital property.

Leslie v. Leslie · filed 1992-03-24(4)

Orders affecting the distribution of marital property are not modifiable. § 452.330.4, RSMo 1986. The reduction in maintenance, dollar for dollar in the amount of the pension benefit, had the effect of impermissibly amending the division of marital property.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property; the division need not be equal.

Law v. Law · filed 1992-06-23

Division of marital assets need not be equal, only fair and equitable. Section 452.330, RSMo.1986. We cannot criticize the trial court’s debt distribution as unreasonable and an abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330 sets out the factors courts consider when dividing marital property.

Sinclair v. Sinclair · filed 1992-08-18

Upon consideration of the evidence contained in the record and the statutory factors contained in § 452.330, RSMo Supp. 1991, which sets forth the factors to be considered in determining marital property division, this court finds that the trial court did not err in dividing the Sinclairs’ marital property.

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property, and the record must contain competent evidence of a significant asset’s value to assess whether the division is just.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 1992-10-06

Section 452.330, RSMo 1986, requires the trial court to make a just division of marital property. There is no evidence in the record of the value of the stock. The question posed by counsel for Diann as set forth above does not constitute competent evidence from which the trial court could have reached the $15,000 value.

Section 452.330 authorizes a dissolution court to divide disputed personal property between spouses.

Seabaugh v. Seabaugh · filed 1992-10-20

The property was divided as part of the dissolution decree which required wife to relinquish some items she had taken when she left husband and retain others. In its findings on his cross-claim of conversion, the trial court found against husband. This portion of the judgment was authorized by § 452.330 RSMo 1986.

Section 452.330 requires the court to set aside each spouse’s separate property before dividing the remaining marital property.

In Re Marriage of Steele · filed 1992-12-08

Section 452.330, RSMo Supp.1990, controls the division of property in a dissolution proceeding. It mandates a two-step process by the trial court: (1) the court must set aside to each spouse his or her separate property, and (2) divide the remaining marital property.

Section 452.330.5 does not bar a later QDRO used to collect an existing judgment for unpaid maintenance or child support, because collection does not redivide marital property.

Baird v. Baird · filed 1992-12-15(5)

The trial court rejected mother’s QDRO on the theory that under § 452.330.5 RSMo (Cum.Supp.1989) any QDRO entered subsequent to the original decree would constitute an unlawful modification of the original property division. This conclusion is ... erroneous. Mother is not seeking to redivide marital property, but is instead attempting to collect a judgment for delinquent maintenance and child support payments.

Section 452.330.1 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property in light of the circumstances, but does not require an equal division.

Tracy v. Tracy · filed 1990-06-21(1)

Section 452.330.1 does not require an equal division of the marital property; it does require a fair and equitable division of the property in light of the circumstances attending each individual case.

Section 452.330 requires a just and equitable division of marital property; a spouse’s financial burden from a mortgage obligation alone does not make the division erroneous.

Marriage of Klein v. Klein · filed 1992-08-25

Section 452.330, RSMo Supp. 1991, requires only a just and equitable division of marital property. ... There is no question that the dissolution has placed a significant financial burden on Savara, but that factor alone does not make the decision of the trial court erroneous as to the mortgage.

Section 452.330’s goal of making former spouses independent and self-sufficient does not bar awarding a business to one spouse and the real estate it occupies to the other when the allocation does not leave either dependent on the other.

In Re the Marriage of Stamatiou · filed 1990-11-20

Appellant relies upon Fields v. Fields, 584 S.W.2d 163, 166 (Mo.App.1979), and Fausett v. Fausett, 661 S.W.2d 614, 618 (Mo.App.1983), as authority to support his contention that the purpose of § 452.330 is to accomplish a total severance of possession and title between spouses and to place each former spouse in an independent and self-sufficient status. This court certainly recognizes that such a policy exists. However, that policy is not violated by the trial court’s allocation of property in this case.

Section 452.330(5) bars modification of a final division of marital property, but does not govern a pension award that an unappealed decree classified as maintenance.

Peaslee v. Peaslee · filed 1992-12-29(5)

Furthermore, Missouri statutes provide that once the division of marital property becomes final it is not subject to modification. §§ 452.330.4, .360.2, RSMo 1986. ... Thus, although the classification of the pension plan as maintenance was improper, no appeal was taken, and the parties are bound by the terms of their agreement, as they intended to be.

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property when the relevant factors make that division just.

McMann v. McMann · filed 1993-01-19.1

The trial court could have relied upon this evidence in dividing the marital property unequally. A just division is not necessarily an equal division.

Section 452.330 requires the court to divide marital property even when a respondent invokes the Fifth Amendment; awarding that respondent property is not affirmative relief.

Dodson v. Dodson · filed 1993-05-04

However, where the respondent in a dissolution action invokes the Fifth Amendment and the court is proceeding on the petitioner’s petition, the court is nonetheless required by section 452.330, RSMo Supp.1992, to divide the marital property. Under these circumstances, the fact that the court makes an award of marital property to the respondent does not constitute affirmative relief to him.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property based on the circumstances of the case, but does not require an equal division.

Vehlewald v. Vehlewald · filed 1993-05-18

The division of marital property is governed by § 452.330, RSMo.Cum.Supp. 1991. That statute requires a fair and equitable division of the marital property in light of the individual circumstances of each case, but does not require an equal division.

Section 452.330 requires the court to distribute all identified marital property or determine whether it is nonmarital or nonexistent before the decree is final.

Lawry v. Lawry · filed 1993-06-11

The trial court has not distributed all the property identified as marital property nor determined if it is nonmarital property or nonexistent. Therefore, the decree is not final with respect to the distribution of marital property as required by § 452.-330.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property; equal shares are permitted but not required.

Welsh v. Welsh · filed 1994-01-25

The division of marital property is governed by section 452.330 RSMo Cum. Supp.1991, which requires a fair and equitable division of the marital property. ... An equal division of property pursuant to a statutory requirement that the division be equitable is not required, but equality in apportionment is certainly not an abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330 requires courts to consider factors including the family home, each spouse’s contribution, and marital conduct when dividing marital property; an unsupported, grossly unequal division can be an abuse of discretion.

V_ A_ E v. D_ A_ E · filed 1994-02-08

The factors to be considered by a trial court in dividing marital property appear in § 452.330, RSMo Cum.Supp.1988. ... However, on the evidence here, we hold it was an abuse of discretion to award Husband anything less than one-third of the marital property.

Section 452.330.5 makes the division of marital property final and prevents a dissolution court from modifying it after the decree becomes final.

Frisella v. Frisella · filed 1994-03-22(5)

The subject matter of the 1986 Stipulation was management of previously divided marital property. The dissolution court could not acquire subject matter jurisdiction over such property after the original Decree became final. § 452.330.5 RSMo Cum.Supp.1993. To the extent that the modification order purports to adjudicate and enforce the parties’ contractual rights and obligations in dealing with their previously divided marital property, the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction.

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property after considering all relevant factors; the division need not be equal.

Hernandez v. Hernandez · filed 1994-03-22

Section 452.330, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1993, requires a court to “divide the marital property in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors[.]” Like the statute governing awards of maintenance, this statute asks the court to consider the economic circumstances of each spouse and the conduct of the parties during the marriage when dividing the marital estate. These factors reflect the premise that the court is not required to make an equal division, only one that is equitable. ... Given that she received approximately $30,000 of the debt on the house along with the house, and given her economic situation as compared to Alfonso’s economic situation, we find ample evidence to support the trial court’s division of the marital property.

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property after consideration of all relevant factors; the division need not be equal.

Test v. Test · filed 1994-03-22

Section 452.330, RSMo Supp.1993, requires the court to divide marital property as it deems just after considering all relevant factors. It is of course not required that the court divide marital assets equally, but only equitably.

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property when its factors justify the disparity.

Jensen v. Jensen · filed 1994-04-26(1)

If the relative factors in § 452.330.1 justify other than an equal division, a disparity in the value of marital property awarded to each spouse is appropriate.

Section 452.330.1 lists factors courts consider when dividing marital property.

Stottlemyre v. Stottlemyre · filed 1994-05-24(1)

Considering the factors enumerated in § 452.330.1, RSMo 1986, and considering the evidence relating to these factors, this court cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in the division of the marital property.

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property when the division is fair and equitable in light of the relevant factors.

In Re Marriage of Betz · filed 1994-07-22(1)

A trial court’s division of marital property does not have to be equal; it must be fair and equitable and take into account the factors enumerated in § 452.330.1.

A party is entitled to present relevant testimony about the factors governing division of marital property under § 452.330.

Kordonowy v. Kordonowy · filed 1994-12-06

Husband was entitled to present her testimony. Kristina, based upon the offer of proof, could have given relevant testimony on factors set out in § 452.375 RSMo Supp.1993 concerning child custody, factors set out in § 452.335 RSMo Supp.1993 determining maintenance and the factors set out in § 452.330 RSMo Supp.1993 regarding the disposition of marital property. Accordingly, we remand with instructions to permit Kristina to testify.

Section 452.330 requires the court to designate property as marital or non-marital and divide all marital property.

Schulte v. Schulte · filed 1995-02-14

At best, the judgment is incomplete for failing to distribute these holdings in violation of § 452.330 RSMo 1986. The court has a statutory, mandatory duty to designate the property as marital or non-marital and divide.

Section 452.330.1 requires a just and equitable division of marital property, though the division need not be equal.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 1995-03-07(1)

Though the division of marital property need not be equal, it must be just and equitable. ... We agree with wife that the inequitable property disposition in this case is not justified by either the law or the evidence presented.

Section 452.330.5 makes a marital property division final and bars redivision of a pension after circumstances change.

In Re Marriage of Strassner · filed 1995-03-14(5)

The distribution of marital property in Missouri constitutes a final order not subject to modification. § 452.330.5 RSMo 1994. Thus, once it has been divided as part of a final decree, a pension may not be redivided after circumstances have changed.

Property acquired during marriage remains marital property unless clear and convincing evidence shows it falls within a § 452.330.2 exception.

Marriage of Carter v. Carter · filed 1995-06-30(2)

This presumption can be overcome by presenting clear and convincing evidence that the property falls within one of the five exceptions listed in § 452.330.2, RSMo 1994.

Section 452.330 requires the court to designate property as marital or nonmarital before dividing marital property.

In Re Marriage of Eck · filed 1995-07-26

Without findings as to marital or nonmarital status of the property, from the record as it exists we cannot know what resolution the trial court made of credibility. Because of the court’s failure to designate the property as marital or nonmarital and then divide, we reverse and remand for that purpose.

Section 452.330 requires a just, though not necessarily equal, division of marital property based on the relevant circumstances of the marriage.

Ryall v. Byrd · filed 1995-08-15

The division of marital property is governed by § 452.330 RSMo 1994. The statute requires a “just” division of property, not an equal one. ... Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court’s division of property was not an abuse of discretion given the brevity of the marriage, economic independence of the parties, the parties’ respective relative contributions to the marital property, and Husband’s misconduct.

Section 452.330 permits the sale of marital property, but does not justify giving a third party with no legal or equitable interest a discounted purchase preference.

Swoboda v. Swoboda · filed 1995-08-22

In support of these contentions, Wife cites statements taken wholly out of context to the effect that pursuant to the broad powers conferred upon the court by § 452.330 RSMo, the court may not only order a sale, but can decree an exchange or conveyance, or other such dispositions, whether between spouses or with a third person. ... Although we have no quarrel with that proposition in the abstract, in none of these or any of the other cases cited by Wife did the court order a sale of marital property to a specific third party, let alone at a price below its fair market value. ... Although Wife’s father may now regret the gift, the fact is that he holds no legal or equitable interest in the property which would justify the preferential disposition he was accorded in the decree.

Section 452.330 gives the trial court discretion to divide marital property.

Zillner v. Zillner · filed 1994-05-03

Wife complains that the property division did not comply with section 452.330, RSMo Supp.1992, relating to division of marital property. ... The property division was clearly within the trial court’s discretion, and wife’s charge of error in the husband’s favor and to her prejudice is meritless.

Section 452.330 does not require an equal division of marital property.

Marriage of Wagner v. Wagner · filed 1995-03-28

Equal division of property is not required by statute.

Section 452.330 requires an equitable division of marital property, but does not require an equal division.

Griffith v. Griffith · filed 1995-10-03

The trial court is not required under § 452.330 RSMo 1994 to make an equal division, but only an equitable one.

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property when the division is just under the circumstances.

In Re Marriage of Jennings · filed 1995-11-09(1)

The division of marital property does not have to be equal; it only needs to be just. ... Under the circumstances of this case, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property, even considering the fact that the C.D.’s were properly part of the marital estate.

Property acquired by either spouse after marriage is generally marital property, including a deferred compensation account.

Tate v. Tate · filed 1996-03-05(2)

Generally, all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage is deemed marital property. § 452.330.2, RSMo (1994). The trial court properly considered the PEBSCO account as marital property.

Section 452.330.1 permits a marital home to be valued at trial despite a delay before the decree when there is no evidence of a material change in its value.

Kinder v. Kinder · filed 1996-04-021

In this ease, the asset in question, a home with a mortgage, is not subject to ever changing value, in a period of a few months, aside from whatever minimal increase in equity results from six or seven mortgage payments which encompass principal, interest, and real estate taxes. Furthermore, although evidence was introduced at trial that Wife lived in and paid the mortgage on the home after the parties separated, no evidence was presented regarding the payment of the mortgage after trial and before the decree. The trial court, therefore, did not err valuing the home at the time of trial and awarding it to the custodial parent.

Section 452.330 requires the dissolution judgment to dispose of marital property; identifying property in findings of fact alone is insufficient.

Spence v. Spence · filed 1996-05-23

We observe that the trial court did not dispose of marital property as required by § 452.330, RSMo 1994 consisting of a lawn mower, a television and a bank checking account containing $6,280.94 standing in the name of “Brian D. Spence, General Contractor.”

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property after consideration of relevant factors, including marital misconduct.

In Re the Marriage of Hunt · filed 1996-11-18(1)

Here, the trial court issued a judgment that detailed consideration of relevant statutory factors governing division of marital property, noting Husband’s marital misconduct and Wife’s blindness and diabetes. See § 452.330.1, RSMo 1994. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital property.

Section 452.330.1 requires a just division of marital property after considering the statutory factors; a disproportionate award must be supported by those factors.

Maz v. Fjz · filed 1997-03-111

The trial court did not find any significant marital misconduct by either party and there are no custody arrangements for minor children. Thus, the last two statutory factors do not support a disproportionate award in favor of either party. On this record, we hold that it was an abuse of discretion to order a disproportionately greater share of the marital property to Wife.

Section 452.330 requires a dissolution decree to dispose of all marital property; a decree that leaves marital property undistributed is not final for appeal.

Spauldin v. Spauldin · filed 1997-05-27

This court concludes that the judgment rendered by the trial court is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal because the dissolution decree does not dispose of all the parties’ marital property as required by § 452.330, RSMo.1994.

Section 452.330 requires a court to set aside each spouse’s nonmarital property and divide marital property justly, with a judgment clear enough to permit appellate review.

Silcox v. Silcox · filed 1997-09-02

In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, § 452.330 RSMo 1994 requires the trial court to set apart to each spouse his or her nonmarital property and divide the marital property in such proportions as it deems just, considering all relevant factors, including the ones specifically enumerated in the statute. ... We are unable to determine whether the trial court’s division of property was just and within its discretion if we do not know how it divided the property. ... We therefore remand the case to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment containing no discrepancies in the valuation and distribution of property.

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property, which need not be equal.

Morris v. Morris · filed 1997-09-23

Under § 452.330 RSMo 1994, the trial court is required to divide the marital property in a just manner, but a just-division is not necessarily an equal one.

Section 452.330.1(4) makes proven marital misconduct a factor in dividing marital property.

State Ex Rel. M.D.K. v. Dolan · filed 1998-05-05(1)(4)

Returning to the ease before us, the alleged conduct of husband, if proven, would be a factor for the trial court to consider in dissolving the marriage.

Section 452.330 permits a just division of marital property without requiring equal shares.

Mellon v. Mellon · filed 1998-08-18(1)

The assumption implicit in Husband’s argument is that because the property is marital property it must be equally apportioned between the parties. Section 452.330, RSMo 1994, the statute that governs the division of property in dissolution cases, does not require an equal distribution.

Section 452.330.1 gives trial courts broad discretion to divide marital property fairly, but a division unduly weighted toward one spouse may be an abuse of discretion.

In Re Marriage of Kirkham · filed 1998-09-17(1)

“Section 452.330.1 gives the trial court great flexibility and far-reaching power to divide the marital property so as to accommodate the needs of the parties upon dissolution and there is no formula respecting the weight to be given the relevant factors which a court may consider.” ... The division of property in this case is so heavily and unduly weighted in favor of Husband as to amount to an abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330 requires courts dividing marital property to consider the spouses’ economic circumstances, contributions, nonmarital property, and conduct, including expenses caused by misconduct.

Miles v. Werle · filed 1998-10-13

Section 452.330 states that in dividing marital property, the court should consider the economic circumstances of the parties at the time of division, the contribution of each party to the marriage, the value of the nonmarital property set apart to each spouse, and the conduct of the parties during the marriage.

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property when the division is just after consideration of the relevant factors.

Griffin v. Griffin · filed 1999-03-09(1)

A just division, however, is not necessarily an equal division, and the award of a higher percentage of the marital assets to one spouse is not a per se abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property if the division is fair and equitable in light of the relevant factors.

In Re Marriage of Medlock · filed 1999-03-251

A trial court’s division of marital property does not have to be equal; but it must be fair and equitable and take into account the factors enumerated in section 452.330.1. ... Keeping the principles mentioned above in mind, we conclude that the trial court did not err in its division of the marital property.

Section 452.330 directs courts to divide marital property in proportions they deem just after considering factors including each spouse’s economic circumstances.

Nocchiero v. Nocchiero · filed 1999-04-20

The trial court divides the property in such proportion as the court deems just after considering all factors including: the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time of the division, the contributions of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property, the value of the nonmarital property, the conduct of the parties, and the custodial arrangements for any minor children. Section 452.330 RSMo. (1994). Here, the economic circumstances of the spouses at the time of division are widely divergent, and we find substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision to award the wife seventy-seven percent of the marital property.

Section 452.330.1 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property based on the circumstances and permits unequal shares.

In Re Marriage of Wright · filed 1999-05-12(1)

Section 452.330.1, RSMo Cum. Supp.1997, requires a trial court to make a fair and equitable division of the marital property in light of the circumstances attending each individual case. ... The statute does not require an equal division. ... Reviewing the division of marital property in the instant case for plain error, and cognizant of the trial court’s conclusion that J. D.’s conduct warranted a disproportionate division, this court holds no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice was perpetrated upon J. D.

Section 452.330.1 requires courts dividing marital property to consider all relevant factors, including the parties’ economic circumstances.

Shook v. Shook · filed 1999-07-21(1)

Section 452.330.1, RSMo Supp. 1997, requires the trial court to consider “all relevant factors” in distributing marital property. The economic circumstance of the parties is a relevant factor.

Section 452.330 requires evidence supporting the value of marital property at the proper valuation date before the court divides it.

Wright v. Wright · filed 1999-09-07

Thus, in finding that the values of the plans were the same at the time of trial as they were at the last time they were valued in the reports admitted at trial, the trial court misapplied the law as found in § 452.330.

Section 452.330 requires the court to divide marital property in proportions it deems just; awarding spouses unspecified portions of an asset does not divide it.

Clark v. Clark · filed 1999-10-05

Section 452.330 RSMo (1997) provides that the trial “court should set apart to each spouse such spouse’s nonmarital property and shall divide the marital property in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors.” Although the judgment mentions the Savings Plan and awards each spouse his and her “portion” of that plan, the trial court’s failure to divide that marital property in such proportion as it deems just is not an erroneous division, but a failure to divide.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property based on the circumstances, but does not require an equal division.

In re the Marriage of Gibson · filed 2000-05-24

The statute, § 452.330, requires a fair and equitable division of the marital property in light of the circumstances attending each individual case, yet it does not require an equal division of the property.

Section 452.330 leaves the division of marital property to the trial court’s discretion, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Bailey v. Bailey · filed 2000-05-30

The determination and division of marital property is within the discretion of the trial court and we defer to the trial court’s judgment unless it is an abuse of discretion. ... We find that the trial court’s award of $20,000 to Husband for his share of equity in the marital residence is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of evidence. No error of law appears, nor any abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330 permits an unequal division of marital debt, and a request for a fair and equitable division need not expressly seek one.

Kocsis v. Kocsis · filed 2000-10-17

In her prayer, wife asked that the trial court allocate the marital debts in a fair and equitable manner pursuant to Section 452.330 RSMo 1994. ... Because a fair and equitable division can also be an unequal division, wife was not required to expressly request a disproportionate division of the marital debt.

Section 452.330.1 requires courts to divide marital debts; a judgment need not list each debt when the debts are ascertainable from the record.

Cross v. Cross · filed 2000-10-31(1)

In 1998, however, the legislature amended section 452.330 to expressly require trial courts to divide not only marital property, but also marital debt. ... The parties conceded during oral argument that the debts were incurred during the marriage, thus they were “marital debts” that the court could allocate in its discretion. In light of the foregoing, we find that these debts are ascertainable from the record and, as such, the trial court did not err by failing to enumerate them in its judgment.

Section 452.330 requires the trial court to distribute all property identified as marital before its judgment is final.

Crawford v. Crawford · filed 2000-11-07

The trial court’s judgment is not final because it did not distribute all of the property identified as marital property as required by § 452.330, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1999.

Section 452.330.5 bars modification of a final marital property division, but an order confirming what the decree already divided is not a modification.

Swyers v. Swyers · filed 2000-12-26(5)

The trial court’s judgment granting the motion to quash did not modify the decree of dissolution. The decree of dissolution had already divided the property. The trial court simply confirmed what was contained in the decree of dissolution. Thus, the trial court’s judgment is not a modification of the decree of dissolution. Therefore, section 452.330 is not applicable.

Section 452.330.1 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property based on the spouses’ circumstances, but does not require an equal division.

In Re Marriage of Fuldner · filed 2001-03-30(1)

This statute requires a fair and equitable division of marital property given the individual circumstances of the case, but does not require an equal division.

Section 452.330.1 requires a just division of marital property and debts after considering relevant factors, including each spouse’s contribution; an equal division is permissible when there is no evidence the court overlooked those contributions.

Chastain v. Chastain · filed 2001-06-12(1)

Pursuant to Section 452.330.1 RSMo (1995) the trial court shall divide the marital property and marital debts in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors as enumerated therein. ... Husband presented no evidence that the trial court failed to consider the contributions of Husband to the accumulation of those marital assets, and therefore, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in equally allocating the marital property between Husband and Wife.

Section 452.330.1 requires courts to consider relevant factors when dividing marital property, but the division need only be fair and equitable, not equal.

Shepard v. Shepard · filed 2001-06-20(1)

In dissolving a marriage, the trial court awards each spouse his or her non-marital property, then divides the remaining marital property and debts in a reasonable manner after considering all relevant factors enumerated in section 452.330, RSMo Cum.Supp.1998. ... Having considered the foregoing statutory factors, we conclude that neither party was heavily favored over the other with regard to the division of marital property.

Section 452.330 requires a fair division of marital property and debts after consideration of the statutory factors, including each spouse’s economic circumstances.

Davis v. Davis · filed 2001-06-29

The first factor of section 452.330 requires the trial court to consider the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the marital property is divided. ... Upon review of all the statutory factors to be considered by the trial court in the division of marital property and debt, we find that the factors weigh in favor of awarding Wife the rental home.

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property when the division is fair and equitable after consideration of the relevant factors.

Schroeder v. Schroeder · filed 2001-11-13(1)

In this case, there was evidence of the first four factors of § 452.330.1; the fifth was irrelevant as the parties have no children. ... Based on these factors, this court does not find that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the set of bonds at issue to Steven.

Section 452.330.1 requires courts to divide marital debt in proportions they deem just after considering all relevant factors.

Bridgeman v. Bridgeman · filed 2002-01-02(1)

A court is required to divide the marital debt in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors. Section 452.330.1 RSMo (2000). ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating to wife the debt representing her student loans.

Section 452.330.1 requires a just division of marital property after considering relevant factors; the division need not be equal.

Marriage of Deck v. Deck · filed 2002-01-15.1

Under section 452.330.1, in a proceeding for legal separation, the trial court is required to divide the marital property as the court deems just, after considering all the relevant factors. ... Given the circumstances of this case, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in its division of the marital assets.

Section 452.330’s marital-property classification alone does not give a spouse an ownership interest sufficient to claim a bankruptcy exemption.

In Re Thorpe · filed 2000-08-04

Second, although the Debtors may very well be correct in stating that the motorcycle is “marital property” under Mo.Rev. Stat. § 452.330, inasmuch as it was purchased during their marriage, that classification is not sufficient to create an interest cognizable in bankruptcy for purposes of determining the validity of a claimed exemption.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property, but the shares need not be equal.

Lombardo v. Lombardo · filed 1999-05-25

The law requires a fair and equitable distribution under § 452.330, RSMo 1994. This does not always require an equal distribution.

Section 452.330 authorizes a dissolution court to divide marital real property.

Brady v. Brady · filed 2001-03-20(1)

Clearly, the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to divide the 173-acre farm. The parcel was marital property and subject to the trial court’s authority under Section 452.330. Therefore, the trial court did not err in asserting its authority to divide the property.

Section 452.330.1 requires the trial court to divide all marital debts; leaving one undivided makes the dissolution judgment nonfinal.

Garrett-Oliver v. Oliver · filed 2003-09-081

Here the trial court made an incomplete finding by not dividing all marital debts as required by section 452.330.1, RSMo 2000.

Section 452.330.1 requires courts to set aside each spouse’s nonmarital property and divide marital property and debts in proportions that are fair and equitable under the circumstances.

Jinks v. Jinks · filed 2003-11-25(1)

Section 452.330.1, RSMo 2000, governs the trial court’s distribution of property in a dissolution proceeding. Under the statute, the trial court must first set aside to each spouse his or her non-marital property and then divide the marital property and debts in such proportions as the court deems just.

Section 452.330.1 requires courts to divide marital property and debt in just proportions, considering all relevant factors.

Travis v. Travis · filed 2005-05-24(1)

A trial court’s duty in a dissolution proceeding includes dividing “the marital property and marital debts in such proportions as the court deems just.” 452.330.1 RSMo. ... The record does not disclose justification for allocating the entire marital debt to Husband. Without such a justification, this court is unable to determine the equity of the award.

Section 452.330 requires a trial court to classify property as marital or non-marital and to determine specific values when the record otherwise lacks enough evidence for a just division.

Hoecker v. Hoecker · filed 2006-04-18

A trial court, however, is not required to determine specific values of items of marital property unless a party requests such findings, or unless the record contains insufficient evidence to enable the court to make a just division.

Section 452.330 permits a trial court to consider a potential tax burden on marital property when testimony supports it.

Elrod v. Elrod · filed 2006-05-31

The trial court’s acknowledgment that assets awarded to husband carried a potential tax burden was supported by testimony given at trial. Point II is denied.

Section 452.330 requires the trial court to set apart nonmarital property and divide all marital property; a decree that leaves property undistributed is not final.

Kallmeyer v. Kallmeyer · filed 2006-06-20

Section 452.330 RSMo (2000) requires the trial court to set apart nonmari-tal property and to divide the marital property in a manner which the court deems just. A decree cannot be considered final if it fails to distribute all of the marital property of the parties, or it fails to determine that the property is nonmari-tal or nonexistent.

Section 452.330.1(4) requires courts to consider the parties’ conduct when dividing marital property; misconduct that burdens the other spouse may affect the division, but the division may not be used to punish a party.

Franklin v. Franklin · filed 2007-02-06(1)(4)

Although it is not a legitimate basis for “punishing” a party when dividing marital property, “marital misconduct is a factor in property division when the offending conduct places extra burdens on the other spouse.”

Section 452.330 requires courts to set aside each spouse’s nonmarital property and divide marital property and debts in just proportions.

Saxton v. Saxton · filed 2007-04-24(1)

The division of property in a dissolution proceeding is governed by section 452.330, RSMo, which requires the trial court, first, to set aside to each spouse his or her nonmarital property, and, then, to divide the marital property and debts in “just” proportions.

Section 452.330.5 makes a division of marital property final and bars its later modification or alteration.

Morgan v. Morgan · filed 2008-04-01(5)

In Missouri, the distribution of marital property constitutes a final order and is not subject to modification or alteration.

Section 452.330.1 requires courts to consider relevant factors when dividing marital property and debts; those factors must justify a substantially unequal division.

Riddell v. Riddell · filed 2004-10-05(1)

While the statutory factors may tend to favor Wife in the property division, those factors are not sufficient to justify the simultaneous award of the overwhelming majority of the marital property to Wife while allocating to Husband a similarly disproportionate majority of marital debt. We conclude that the property and debt division is arbitrary and unreasonable, reflecting indifference and a lack of judicial consideration.

Section 452.330.1 does not authorize a court to award marital property to the parties’ children.

Appling v. Appling · filed 2005-02-15(1)

The statute, however, does not give the trial court discretion to divide and distribute marital property to the parties’ children.

Section 452.330.1 does not require a judgment to discuss nonmarital property before marital property, provided the court follows the proper procedure in dividing the property.

Hart v. Hart · filed 2007-01-09.1

Section 452.330.1 imposes no requirements on the order of the language of the judgment itself, as long as the trial court follows the proper procedure in arriving at that judgment.

Section 452.330 requires a court to avoid leaving former spouses in a landlord-tenant relationship when their property can be justly divided without one.

In Re the Marriage of Accurso · filed 2007-08-14(1)

Because one of Section 452.330’s goals is to minimize the need for further litigation by completely severing all relations between parties to a divorce proceeding, Section 452.330 mandates that the circuit court avoid placing the Accursos in a landlord-tenant relationship, if possible.

Section 452.330.1 requires courts to consider all relevant factors, including each spouse’s contribution to acquiring property, when dividing marital property and debt.

Jennings v. Jennings · filed 2010-12-07(1)

Pursuant to section 452.330.1 RSMo 2000, the trial court must consider “all relevant factors” when dividing marital property and debt,, including the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property. ... Considering the significant contribution Wife made to the acquisition of most of the marital property through the use of proceeds from the sale of her separate property, and through the use of her higher income, the disparity in the division of property in this case was justified.

Section 452.330.5 makes a dissolution decree’s division of marital property final and not subject to modification.

Dahn v. Dahn · filed 2011-06-30(5)

Unlike the statutes governing child custody (§ 452.410), child support (§ 452.370), and spousal maintenance (§§ 452.335.3, 452.370), the legislature has expressly declared, in two separate statutory provisions, that the provisions of a dissolution decree effecting the distribution of marital property shall be final and non-modifiable in all cases. § 452.330.5 (“The court’s order as it affects distribution of marital property shall be a final order not subject to modification[.]”); § 452.360.2 (“The court’s judgment of dissolution of marriage ... as it affects distribution of marital property shall be a final judgment not subject to modification.”). These statutory provisions reflect a legislative determination that issues concerning the division of marital property be fully and finally resolved in the dissolution proceeding itself.

Section 452.330.1 requires the court to divide marital debt in a dissolution judgment.

Pollard v. Pollard · filed 2012-02-28.1

While we agree with Husband’s conclusion that section 452.330.1 mandates the division of marital debt, we dismiss Husband’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 452.330.1 permits an unequal division of marital property when a spouse's contribution to acquiring the property justifies the disparity.

Bright v. Bright · filed 2014-05-13(1)(2)

Husband's contribution to the acquisition of the Rayville property, as well as his contribution to the acquisition of the Excelsior Springs property, justified the disparity in the division of the marital property.

Section 452.330.1 requires a dissolution court to classify property and divide marital property in a just manner.

Navarro v. Navarro · filed 2015-07-28(1)

Section 452.330.1, RSMo 2000, requires the court in a dissolution proceeding to determine whether property is marital or non-marital and, if marital, divide it in a just manner.

Section 452.330.1 requires the trial court to divide marital debt; leaving a joint debt unassigned makes the dissolution judgment nonfinal.

In Re the Marriage of: JILL D. GOODLOE and STEVEN R. GOODLOE, JILL D. GOODLOE, Petitioner-Respondent v. GOODLO · filed 2015-08-26(1)

The trial court was required to divide the marital debt. See § 452.330.1 RSMo (2000); Rogers v. Rogers, 253 S.W.3d 134, 137 (Mo. App. 2008). ... The trial court’s failure to divide this debt means that the judgment is not final and that Husband’s appeal must be dismissed.

Section 452.330.1 permits a court to consider a spouse’s financial circumstances, including debt, when making an unequal division of marital property.

Dubrovenskiy v. Yelena Vakula, Respondent/Respondent. · filed 2021-04-13(1)

In light of these considerations justifying an unequal division of marital property, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering Wife’s financial circumstances and awarding her 51 percent of marital property.

Section 452.330 requires the dissolution court to divide marital property presented to it for division.

Greene v. Greene · filed 2024-02-27

This Court will not convict the circuit court of error for failing to distribute marital property that was never presented to the circuit court for division. At the time of the circuit court’s judgment, all of the known marital property had been distributed by the parties in their Memorandum.

Section 452.330.1 requires a just division of all marital property and debts that is definite and capable of enforcement.

Joyner v. Joyner · filed 2015-03-031

In sum, we conclude that the circuit court erred in its deferred allocation of a portion of the LAGERS pension benefit to Wife, because it fails to satisfy the circuit court's obligation under section 452.330 to equitably divide all of the couple's marital property and debts in a manner that is definite and capable of enforcement.

Section 452.330.1 permits an equalization payment as part of a just division of marital property, even when the other spouse receives nominal, modifiable maintenance.

Cureau v. Cureau · filed 2017-03-28(1)

Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making an award of marital property, in the form of an equalization payment of $115,000 to Wife, pursuant to section 452.330, and, further, we find the trial court also did not abuse its discretion making such an award in light of the trial court granting Husband’s request to be awarded modifiable maintenance pursuant to section 452.335.

Section 452.330 requires a court readjudicating a vacated property division to divide the marital estate as it exists at the time of readjudication.

Olofson v. Scott W. Olofson, in his Capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tom W. Olofson · filed 2021-07-22(1)

In readjudicating the division of property pursuant to section 452.330, the court must divide the marital estate as it exists at the time of readjudication, which would include proceeds from the sale of Epiq shares and funds Husband received as benefits.

Section 452.330.1 permits a just but unequal division of marital property after considering relevant factors, including the spouses’ contributions and conduct.

Marriage of Brisco v. Brisco · filed 1986-07-15(1)

Moreover, the property division must be just but it need not be equal. ... In his discretion the trial judge found wife’s misconduct warranted a 40/60 split of the marital property, and the split is not so disparate as to be clearly unfair.

Section 452.330 requires a fair and equitable division of marital property and does not permit a wholly disproportionate division to punish a spouse's misconduct.

D'Aquila v. D'Aquila · filed 1986-08-27

Inordinate focus on a particular incident or series of incidents is inappropriate when the dissolution affects a marriage of long duration, and § 452.330 does not authorize judicial censure of either party by means of a wholly disproportionate distribution of marital property.

Section 452.330.1 allows a court to consider marital conduct when dividing marital property and does not require equal shares.

Marriage of Andrews v. Andrews · filed 1984-06-26.1

No authority for this proposition is cited in his brief which, on the one hand concedes that an equal division is not mandated, but on the other argues that none of the factors recited in § 452.330.1, RSMo Supp.1982 justified granting respondent a greater share than was set off to him. In his contention that none of the factors set out in the statute weighed in favor of either party, appellant overlooks the evidence at trial as to his conduct during the marriage. The evidence by the wife was uncontradicted that appellant engaged in extra-marital affairs on a number of occasions and he himself admitted various acts of sexual abuse committed on respondent over a period of years. There can be no basis to charge error as to the marital property division in view of the record in the case and the broad discretion vested in the trial court.

Section 452.330 permits a fair but unequal division of marital property, taking marital misconduct into account.

Scott v. Scott · filed 1985-12-17(1)(4)

The inequality of the division of marital property is no ground for setting aside the division, especially in view of the husband’s marital misconduct of which there was considerable evidence. Arp v. Arp, 572 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo.App.1978); Sec. 452.330.1(4), RSMo Supp.1984. The marital property division is not required to be equal but only to be fair.

Section 452.330(1)(4) permits courts to consider marital conduct but does not authorize a grossly disproportionate property division to punish one spouse.

In Re the Marriage of Schulte · filed 1977-01-111(4)

Inordinate focus on a particular incident or series of incidents is therefore inappropriate, particularly when the dissolution affects a marriage of long duration; § 452.330, subd. 1(4) was' not intended to authorize judicial censure of either party by means of a wholly disproportionate distribution of marital property.

Section 452.330(1) requires a just division of marital property, though the division need not be equal; marital conduct is one factor in that decision.

In re Marriage of Fehr · filed 1978-09-26(1)

As Mrs. Fehr recognizes, the Dissolution of Marriage Act requires a just division of property, but not an equal one. ... Conduct is certainly a relevant factor in the determination of the distribution but is not the sole criteria. ... Our consideration of the entire record fails to demonstrate any misconduct so burdensome as to require adjustment of the distribution of the marital property as determined by the trial court.

Section 452.330.1(4) requires courts to consider proven spousal misconduct when dividing marital property.

D---L---L v. M---O---L · filed 1978-11-27(1)(4)

Thus, consideration of the "conduct of the parties during the marriage" in arriving at a "just" division of marital property is unique to Missouri's Dissolution of Marriage Act and its inclusion necessarily bespeaks of a legislative command that spousal misconduct, when shown to exist in a given case, be viably considered in arriving at a "just" division of marital property.

Section 452.330 allows a court to weigh marital fault and each spouse’s contribution when dividing marital property; fault does not require an unequal division.

Beckman v. Beckman · filed 1976-12-20(1)

The trial court’s discretion is defined by that statute, stating that the court “shall divide the marital property in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors.” Fault is but one relevant factor. The statute also declares “the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property” shall be a relevant factor. There was evidence of heavy contribution by the husband to his financial success. In weighing the relevant factors, the trial court could and apparently did consider this contribution as significant as fault in dividing the marital property. We find no abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330 requires consideration of factors including marital misconduct when dividing marital property.

Dopuch v. Dopuch · filed 1979-07-03

We have considered all the factors of § 452.330, RSMo Supp.1973, including evidence of the husband’s marital misconduct, and find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s judgment.