## Facts

- Wife, a Russian schoolteacher, met Husband, a Missouri resident and retired physician, online in 2005 while she lived in Russia with her two daughters.
- In 2006 Husband traveled to Russia, met Wife and the children, and proposed marriage.
- To support immigration, Husband sent a letter to the U.S. Embassy and executed affidavits to federal immigration authorities stating an intention to support Wife and her daughters upon their move to the United States.
- In reliance on the move, Wife sold her apartment and other property in Russia and transferred the proceeds to Husband in the United States.
- Wife and the children moved to Husband’s home in January 2008; the parties married in March 2008.
- The relationship deteriorated; after an allegation by Wife’s younger daughter of inappropriate touching by Husband and involvement by social services, Wife left the home with the children and entered a shelter.
- Wife bought return tickets to Russia but did not use them; she and the children remained in the United States.
- Husband filed for dissolution; Wife counter-petitioned seeking maintenance, child support, and additional relief based on contract and estoppel theories tied to Husband’s promises and immigration documents.

## Issues

1. Whether Husband’s oral and written representations, including immigration-related affidavits and an embassy letter, created an enforceable express or implied contract to provide continuing financial support to Wife and/or her daughters after dissolution.
2. Whether Husband was barred by promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel from denying an ongoing support obligation because Wife allegedly relied by selling assets, relocating, and transferring proceeds to him.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Wife ongoing spousal maintenance.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion regarding attorney’s fees.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the dissolution judgment.
- It held the evidence did not establish an enforceable express or implied contract requiring Husband to provide post-dissolution support to Wife or her daughters.
- It held Wife failed to prove the elements of promissory or equitable estoppel, including sufficient detrimental reliance.
- It held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying ongoing maintenance.
- It held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award additional attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- A party claiming an express or implied contract must prove a bargained-for agreement with definite, enforceable obligations; statements made to government agencies in the immigration process, without more, do not necessarily create a private contractual duty between spouses enforceable in dissolution.
- Promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel require, at minimum, a clear representation and reliance that results in actual detriment; reliance is insufficient if it does not place the claimant in a worse position.
- Maintenance awards in dissolution proceedings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; a court may deny maintenance where evidence supports a finding that the spouse can be self-supporting based on education, skills, and employment capacity.
- Attorney’s fee determinations in dissolution are committed to the trial court’s discretion and are reversed only for abuse of that discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed denial of maintenance and rejected Wife’s contract and estoppel theories, concluding that immigration-related statements of intended support did not create an enforceable post-dissolution support obligation and that Wife failed to show detrimental reliance warranting estoppel.


Thacker v. Thacker, 311 S.W.3d 402 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)