## Facts

- Husband and wife married in 1972; both were college-educated.
- Wife worked for Southwestern Bell and advanced through corporate transfers (Little Rock to St. Louis to Oklahoma City, then back to St. Louis), eventually earning over $70,000 annually.
- Husband worked early in the marriage (including as a reporter) but, after losing a job in 1978, the parties agreed he would focus on writing while wife remained the primary wage earner.
- Husband’s writing effort produced no sustained work; he had only brief, intermittent employment (including short-term retail and freelance work).
- During periods without outside work, husband assumed domestic responsibilities, including cooking dinner regularly, some household upkeep, and for about two years transporting wife to and from work.
- Dissolution proceedings began in 1987; at trial, husband had minimal income (about $75 per month in interest) and limited current employability after years out of the regular job market.
- The marital estate was accumulated largely through wife’s earnings.
- The trial court awarded approximately 75.5% of marital assets to wife and 24.5% to husband, granted husband $500 in attorney’s fees, and denied husband maintenance based on a finding that he made no substantial contribution to the accumulation of marital property.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dividing marital property by awarding wife roughly three-quarters of the marital estate based on a finding that husband made no substantial contribution.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying husband maintenance despite his economic dependence and limited present earning capacity.
3. Whether marital property division and maintenance determinations must be applied without regard to the sex of the economically dependent spouse.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed and remanded.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion in the marital property division by effectively disregarding husband’s domestic and other contributions and awarding him only about one-quarter of the marital assets.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion in denying maintenance and directed an award of rehabilitative maintenance to allow husband time to obtain education or training for employment.
- The court remanded for a more equitable property division and for rehabilitative maintenance in an amount and duration consistent with statutory factors, including husband’s needs and wife’s ability to pay.

## Legal Principles

- Marital property must be divided in a “just” manner after considering statutory factors, including each spouse’s contributions (monetary and non-monetary) and the parties’ economic circumstances.
- Domestic services performed during the marriage are relevant contributions to the marital enterprise and may not be treated as nonexistent merely because they are non-income-producing.
- Maintenance may be awarded when a spouse lacks sufficient property to meet reasonable needs and cannot support himself or herself through appropriate employment.
- Rehabilitative maintenance is appropriate where temporary support is needed for education or training to permit a dependent spouse to become self-supporting.
- The statutes governing property division and maintenance are applied on a sex-neutral basis; the dependent spouse’s gender does not alter the analysis.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required reconsideration of both property division and maintenance because the trial court improperly discounted the husband’s domestic contributions and failed to account for his economic dependence and need for time-limited rehabilitative support to reenter the workforce, applying the dissolution statutes without regard to gender.


Michael v. Michael, 791 S.W.2d 772 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)