burden of rebutting presumption in Missouri

35 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1908–2022 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
Hall v. Hallgreen moctapp · 1991 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2011 2 sentences 2011Section 452.330.3; 11 Hall v. Hall, 804 S.W.2d 411, 414 (Mo.App. 2000Id. (citations omitted).	1	2
Taylor v. Taylorgreen moctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019"A spouse who claims such property to be non-marital must assume the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear and convincing evidence." Taylor v. Taylor, 12 S.W.3d 340, 345 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (quotation omitted). 19 Husband agrees that the value of the TSP account at the beginning of the marriage was $102,125.56, but argues that he was entitled to having the growth in the non-marital portion of the account deemed to be his separate property.	1	1
Marriage of Drikow v. Drikowgreen moctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 1 sentence 2010Drikow v. Drikow, 803 S.W.2d 122, 126 (Mo.App.	1	1
Harding v. Hardinggreen moctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008If rebutted, the presumed fact “must then be determined from the evidence in the case as if no presumption had ever been in operation.” Harding v. Harding, 826 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Mo.App.	1	1
Hoberock v. Hoberockgreen moctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006Hoberock v. Hoberock, 164 S.W.3d 26, 30 (Mo.App.	1	1
In Re Marriage of Patroskegreen moctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002Thus “[a] party who claims that property, presumed to be marital, is in fact separate property assumes the burden of rebutting the presumption with clear and convincing evidence .... ” In re Marriage of Patroske, 888 S.W.2d 374, 379-80 (Mo.App.	1	1
Randolph v. Randolphgreen moctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001“The party questioning the presumption of marital property has the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.” Randolph v. Randolph, 8 S.W.3d 160, 167 (Mo.App.1999). 2001"The party questioning the presumption of marital property has the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear and convincing evidence." Randolph v. Randolph, 8 S.W.3d 160, 167 (Mo.App.1999).	1	1
Summerville v. Summervillegreen moctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999Summerville v. Summerville, 869 S.W.2d 79, 85 (Mo.App.1993).	1	1
Boyce v. Boycegreen moctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986Boyce v. Boyce, 694 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Mo.App.1985).	1	1
Hull v. Hullgreen moctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983	1	1
Miller v. Warnergreen mo · 1968 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (27)

Case	Cited	Years
Twin Chimneys Homeowners Ass'n v. J.E. Jones Construction Co. green moctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2016Twin Chimneys Homeowners Ass’n, 168 S.W.3d at 504 . 2016Twin Chimneys Homeowners Ass’n, 168 S.W.3d at 504 .	3	2008–2016
Fitzpatrick v. Dooley green moctapp · 1905 2 sentences 1922This rule has been so often stated and applied by our courts as to make it unnecessary to do more than refer thereto. [See Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Colev. 1922This rule has been so often stated and applied by our courts as to make it unnecessary to do more than refer thereto. [See Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Colev.	3	1914–1922
Adams v. Children's Mercy Hospital green mo · 1992 2 sentences 2022Id. 2022Id.	2	2022–2022
Rapp v. Rapp green moctapp · 1990 2 sentences 1993Id. 1990Rapp, 789 S.W.2d at 150 .	2	1990–1993
Lillard v. Wilson green mo · 1903 2 sentences 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 , 1914In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testi mony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 ,	2	1914–1917
Cole v. Fitzgerald green moctapp · 1908 2 sentences 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 , 1914In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testi mony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 ,	2	1914–1917
Hartley v. Estate of Hartley green moctapp · 1913 2 sentences 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 , 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 ,	2	1914–1917
Kingston v. Roberts neutral moctapp · 1913 2 sentences 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 , 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 ,	2	1914–1917
Hyde v. Honiter green moctapp · 1913 2 sentences 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 , 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 ,	2	1914–1917
Crowley v. Dagley neutral moctapp · 1913 2 sentences 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 , 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 ,	2	1914–1917
Brand v. Ray neutral moctapp · 1911 2 sentences 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 , 1917In such cases it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove an agreement to pay for such services, either by direct testimony, or by facts and circumstances indicating a mutual understanding and intention to that effect. [See Hyde v. Honiter, 175 Mo. App. 583 , 158 S. W. 83 ; Kingston v. Estate of Roberts, 175 Mo. App. 69 , 157 S. W. 1042 ; Hartley v. Estate of Hartley, 173 Mo. App. 18 , 155 S. W. 1099 ; Crowley v. Dagley, 174 Mo. App. 561 , 161 S. W. 366 ; Cole v. Fitzgerald, 132 Mo. App. 17 , 111 S. W. 678 ; Fitzpatrick v. Dooley, 112 Mo. App. 165 , 86 S. W. 719 ; Brand v. Ray, 156 Mo. App. 622 ,	2	1914–1917
Kelly v. Kelly green moctapp · 2011 1 sentence 2019It is generally true that "[i]f there is an increase in the value of property which is part marital and part non-marital, the spouse contributing the non-marital funds and the spouse contributing the marital funds each receive a proportionate and fair return on their investment." Kelly, 340 S.W.3d at 679 .	1	2019–2019
Burton v. Commonwealth green ky · 2009 1 sentence 2018Burton v. Commonwealth , 300 S.W.3d 126 , 142 (Ky. 2009).	1	2018–2018
Parking Systems, Inc. v. Kansas City Downtown Redevelopment Corp. green mo · 1974 1 sentence 2012Id.	1	2012–2012
State v. Dorsey green moctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2011Id. at 554 .	1	2011–2011
Duerbusch v. Karas green moctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2009Here, Lauck has "the burden of rebutting the presumption that the trial court ruled correctly, proving the trial court abused its discretion and showing she suffered prejudice from the abuse." Duerbusch, 267 S.W.3d at 707 .	1	2009–2009
State Ex Rel. Watkins v. Cassell green moctapp · 1956 1 sentence 2002Id. at 653 .	1	2002–2002
Moore v. Seabaugh green moctapp · 1984 1 sentence 1991Seabaugh, 684 S.W.2d at 495 .	1	1991–1991
Kilgore v. Kilgore green moctapp · 1984 2 sentences 1990Kilgore, supra, 666 S.W.2d at 932 , reiterates the settled case law that “a judg 133 ment entered by a foreign court is presumed to be a judgment in a matter in which the court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter....” The person contesting recognition of that judgment bears the burden of rebutting that presumption through sufficient evidence. 1990Kilgore, supra, 666 S.W.2d at 932 , reiterates the settled case law that “a judg 133 ment entered by a foreign court is presumed to be a judgment in a matter in which the court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter....” The person contesting recognition of that judgment bears the burden of rebutting that presumption through sufficient evidence.	1	1990–1990
Harry v. Harry green moctapp · 1988 1 sentence 1990Id. at 826 .	1	1990–1990
Batson v. Kentucky green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 1988Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723 . 1988Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723 .	1	1988–1988
Earney v. Clay green moctapp · 1974	1	1977–1977
Lastofka v. Lastofka green mo · 1936	1	1967–1967
Loehr v. Starke green mo · 1933	1	1967–1967
Walton v. Van Camp green mo · 1955	1	1967–1967
Baker v. Lyell green moctapp · 1922	1	1934–1934
Mowry v. Norman green mo · 1907	1	1908–1908

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.330 (5) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.300 (3) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.335 (3) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.355 (3) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.065 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 341 (1851–2026) TX 190 (1938–2026) IN 91 (1913–2025) PA 62 (1925–2024) LA 48 (1973–2019) CA 47 (1865–2026) WA 47 (1918–2025) NY 46 (1922–2024) VA 45 (1924–2026) NC 37 (1893–2025) MO 35 (1908–2022) CT 31 (1934–2024) MN 30 (1927–2016) OH 29 (1978–2026) MI 27 (1978–2026) MS 26 (1985–2021) AL 20 (1891–2017) AR 20 (1982–2025) AZ 18 (1967–2026) WI 17 (1991–2025) FL 16 (1932–2019) GA 16 (1924–2019) NM 12 (1986–2026) CO 12 (1873–2020) ND 12 (1947–2020) DC 11 (1975–2024) NJ 11 (1954–2020) MD 11 (1990–2023) DE 11 (1962–2022) TN 10 (1980–2021) KY 7 (1955–2025) MT 7 (1990–1999) WV 6 (1983–2024) KS 5 (1977–2021) NV 5 (1990–2023) NE 5 (1903–2006) OR 5 (1952–2025) ID 5 (1986–2018) IA 5 (1925–2018) RI 3 (1979–2005) HI 3 (1983–2001) SC 3 (1941–2026) SD 3 (2002–2023) MA 2 (2003–2008) VT 2 (2015–2017) OK 2 (1953–1994) ME 2 (1998–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check