## Facts

- Mary Elizabeth Koon (Wife) and Merle Richard Koon (Husband) married on August 1, 1970, and had four children; two were unemancipated at the time of trial (about ages 13 and 10).
- Wife filed a petition (and later an amended petition) for dissolution in 1996, alleging the marriage was irretrievably broken because Husband “has behaved during the marriage in such a way that [Wife] cannot reasonably be expected to live with him.”
- Husband did not file an answer until the morning of trial (February 27, 1997), when he tendered an out-of-time answer that also requested legal separation rather than dissolution.
- The trial court allowed the late answer to be filed but refused to allow Husband to add a request for legal separation.
- At trial, Wife testified that Husband was controlling, that they argued about money and spending, and that he opposed her attending college.
- Wife also testified that Husband worked in Virginia for about 15 months and that she was happier while he was away; she believed there was no hope of reconciliation.
- Husband denied the marriage was irretrievably broken and stated he did not want a divorce.
- The trial court granted a dissolution and ruled on child custody, child support, and division of marital property.
- In the dissolution judgment, the trial court expressly stated it did “not find that [Husband] has behaved in such a way that [Wife] could not reasonably be expected to live with him.”
- Husband appealed the irretrievable-breakdown finding (and other rulings). Wife filed a cross-appeal challenging aspects of child support.

## Issues

1. When one spouse denies the marriage is irretrievably broken, may a trial court grant dissolution without evidence proving at least one ground listed in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.320.2?
2. Was there substantial evidence to support a finding of irretrievable breakdown where the trial court rejected the only pleaded § 452.320.2 ground and the record did not show any other statutory ground?

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two reversed the judgment of dissolution.
- The court held the finding of irretrievable breakdown was not supported by substantial evidence because, with Husband contesting dissolution, § 452.320.2 required proof of at least one enumerated ground and none was established.
- Because the dissolution judgment was reversed, the remaining points in Husband’s appeal and Wife’s cross-appeal concerning child support were moot.

## Legal Principles

- When a spouse denies that the marriage is irretrievably broken, a Missouri court may grant dissolution only if the evidence proves one or more of the statutory grounds in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.320.2.
- A general finding that a marriage is irretrievably broken does not satisfy § 452.320.2 when the contesting spouse does not agree and the evidence does not match an enumerated ground.
- If the petition relies on a specific § 452.320.2 ground and the trial court expressly finds that ground was not proved, the court cannot sustain a dissolution decree on that ground.
- Where the record does not support any alternative § 452.320.2 basis for irretrievable breakdown (such as abandonment, adultery, or the statutory periods of separation), the dissolution judgment must be reversed.
- Reversal of the dissolution judgment makes dependent rulings (including property division and child support issues raised on appeal) nonreviewable in that appeal because they rest on a judgment that no longer stands.

## Conclusion

Koon v. Koon reversed a dissolution judgment because Husband denied the marriage was irretrievably broken and the trial court’s own findings rejected Wife’s only pleaded statutory ground under § 452.320.2, while the record did not establish any other statutory basis for an irretrievable-breakdown finding; as a result, the remaining appellate issues and Wife’s cross-appeal were moot.


Koon v. Koon, 969 S.W.2d 828 (1998)