452.130. Spouse abandoned, court to adjudge maintenance — execution to enforce. — When a person, without good cause, shall abandon his or her spouse, and refuse or neglect to maintain and provide for him or her, the circuit court, on his or her petition for that purpose, shall order and adjudge such support and maintenance to be provided and paid by such person for the spouse and the spouse's children, or any of them, by that marriage, out of his property, and for such time as the nature of the case and the circumstances of the parties shall require, and compel the person to give security for such maintenance, and from time to time make such further orders touching the same as shall be just, and enforce such judgment by execution, sequestration of property, or by such other lawful means as are in accordance with the practice of the court; and as long as said maintenance is continued, the person shall not be charged with the spouse's debts, contracted after the judgment for such maintenance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
34
cases, 1953–2018 · leading case:
Coates v. Coates, 650 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
Coates v. Coates, 650 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 7× “Plaintiff Muriel Jean Coates filed an action for separate maintenance, (§ 452.130), 1 against her husband defendant James Edward Coates.”
Cregan v. Clark, 658 S.W.2d 924 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Although separate maintenance is still recognized in this state, § 452.130, RSMo 1978, it is legally distinguishable from legal separation.”
La Presto v. La Presto, 285 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. 1955).
· cites it 3× “It was further held that not only did the trial court have jurisdiction to enter a judgment for support and maintenance in gross, but that under the circumstances presented there was no erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.”
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 626 S.W.2d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Consideration of an earlier constitutional attack on § 452.130, RSMo 1969, the separate maintenance statute, has been rejected on appeal because the husband had not presented the issue before the trial court.”
Ferneau v. Armour & Co., 303 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957).
· cites it 3× “, 1899, which is identical with present Section 452.130 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. (relating to separate maintenance).”
Price v. Price, 281 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955).
· cites it 2× “And, conceding (without agreeing) that the quoted statement might not have been inappropriate under the facts of the cited cases, nevertheless we are of the opinion that nothing-in the instant case should or does exclude it from operation of the firmly-established and…”
Est. of Heil v. Heil, 538 S.W.3d 382 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “1939, amended and now codified at section 452.130). Ms. Heil argues that the definition ascribed to the term "abandon" in the context of temporary maintenance awards must also be ascribed to the term "abandon" as used in section 474.”
I v. B, 305 S.W.2d 713 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957).
· cites it 2× “The statute (Section 452.130) does not provide for such allowance, but the courts have long held that it was a part of the necessarily inherent powers of a court of equity.”
Luckett v. Luckett, 263 S.W.2d 41 (Mo. Ct. App. 1953).
· cites it 3× “Section 452.130 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. After a trial of the case the court found that plaintiff was not an innocent and injured party, and consequently not entitled to a divorce as prayed in his petition.”
Woodman v. Woodman, 281 S.W.2d 555 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955).
· cites it 3× “An action for separate maintenance is a statutory proceeding governed by Section 452.130, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. The appellate courts of this state have consistently ruled that the statute means just what it says, and that before a wife can prevail in a suit for separate…”
Wray v. Wray, 73 S.W.3d 646 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Wife contends that Husband abandoned Wife, without good cause, and refused to provide her with maintenance and support, subjecting him to liability under Section 452.130. Characterizing this abandonment as a tortious act, Wife argues Husband’s abandonment falls within Section…”
Forbis Ex Rel. Davis v. Forbis, 274 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955).
· cites it 2× “” To recover in a statutory action for separate maintenance [Section 452.130], the plaintiff wife must show, by a clear preponderance of the evidence [Glick v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.