## Facts

- Joseph A. Richardson and Ida M. Richardson divorced in December 1997 and executed a separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution decree.
- Joseph agreed to pay Ida $2,425 per month in maintenance, terminating only upon Ida’s remarriage or the death of either party.
- The agreement stated its terms were not subject to modification regardless of the parties’ circumstances.
- The dissolution court found the agreement not unconscionable and incorporated it into the judgment, which expressly provided that maintenance was nonmodifiable.
- In 2004, Joseph moved to modify the decree and, in Count II, sought to terminate maintenance based on allegations that Ida attempted to arrange burglary of his home and his murder.
- Joseph asserted Ida’s alleged conduct breached the agreement, violated public policy, and waived any claim to maintenance.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may terminate or modify an expressly nonmodifiable contractual maintenance obligation after the decree based on allegations of the payee spouse’s immoral or criminal conduct, under theories of unconscionability, public policy, or waiver.
2. Whether allegations of criminal intent and acts, assumed true at the pleading stage, state a legally cognizable claim to end nonmodifiable maintenance under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.325.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal with prejudice of Count II for failure to state a claim.
- The court held § 452.325 does not authorize post-decree modification or termination of a maintenance term the parties made nonmodifiable and the court found not unconscionable when incorporated into the judgment.
- The court rejected Joseph’s public-policy theory because the maintenance obligation would end upon Joseph’s death, so the alleged wrongdoing did not create a cognizable “profit from wrongdoing” basis to invalidate the maintenance term.
- The court held the pleading did not state a claim for waiver because it did not allege an intentional relinquishment of Ida’s maintenance right or conduct legally sufficient to constitute waiver.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.325, a court reviews a separation agreement for unconscionability at the time of the dissolution decree; once incorporated and approved as not unconscionable, nonmodifiable maintenance terms must be enforced as written.
- Courts lack authority to revisit conscionability after entry of a decree to modify or terminate expressly nonmodifiable maintenance based on later-arising allegations of misconduct.
- Public policy objections do not supply an extra-statutory basis to alter nonmodifiable maintenance absent a statutory mechanism; alleged criminal conduct alone does not render an approved nonmodifiable maintenance term unenforceable.
- Waiver requires a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or legally sufficient conduct inconsistent with asserting that right; allegations of wrongful acts, without allegations showing relinquishment, do not plead waiver.
- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, assuming pleaded facts as true does not cure the absence of legal authority for the requested relief.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the parties’ expressly nonmodifiable maintenance agreement as incorporated into the dissolution judgment, holding that post-decree allegations of the payee spouse’s criminal conduct did not create statutory authority to terminate maintenance and did not sufficiently plead public-policy invalidity or waiver.


Richardson v. Richardson, 218 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. 2007)