Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.320 (2026)

Finding that marriage is irretrievably broken, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

452.320. Finding that marriage is irretrievably broken, when — notice — denial by a party, effect of — alternate findings. — 1. If both of the parties by petition or otherwise have stated under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, or one of the parties has so stated and the other has not denied it, the court, after considering the aforesaid petition or statement, and after a hearing thereon shall make a finding whether or not the marriage is irretrievably broken and shall enter an order of dissolution or dismissal accordingly.

2. If one of the parties has denied under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the petition and the prospect of reconciliation, and after hearing the evidence shall

(1) Make a finding whether or not the marriage is irretrievably broken, and in order for the court to find that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the petitioner shall satisfy the court of one or more of the following facts:

(a) That the respondent has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent;

(b) That the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;

(c) That the respondent has abandoned the petitioner for a continuous period of at least six months preceding the presentation of the petition;

(d) That the parties to the marriage have lived separate and apart by mutual consent for a continuous period of twelve months immediately preceding the filing of the petition;

(e) That the parties to the marriage have lived separate and apart for a continuous period of at least twenty-four months preceding the filing of the petition; or

(2) Continue the matter for further hearing not less than thirty days or more than six months later, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached on the court's calendar, and may suggest to the parties that they seek counseling. No court shall require counseling as a condition precedent to a decree, nor shall any employee of any court, or of the state or any political subdivision of the state, be utilized as a marriage counselor. At the adjourned hearing, the court shall make a finding whether the marriage is irretrievably broken as set forth in subdivision (1) above and shall enter an order of dissolution or dismissal accordingly.

--------

(L. 1973 H.B. 315 § 5, A.L. 1977 H.B. 470)

(1976) This act is not a true "no fault" dissolution law and dissolution should not be granted over the objection of an innocent spouse. In re Marriage of Mitchell (A.), 545 S.W.2d 313.

(1977) If a party denies under oath that a marriage is irretrievably broken the court must find one of the statutory grounds has been met. Failure to prove any of these grounds must result in a refusal to dissolve the marriage. In re Marriage of Capstick (A.), 547 S.W.2d 522.

(1977) Held, parties had been living "separate and apart" even though they lived in the same home. In re Marriage of Uhls (A.), 549 S.W.2d 107.

(1977) Failure to mail notice does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. LeBeau v. LeBeau (A.), 556 S.W.2d 204.

(1977) Court erroneously applied the law by failing to hold a hearing on whether marriage is irretrievably broken, when absent party, after receiving notice of interlocutory finding, files an objection within ten days. Brown v. Brown (A.), 561 S.W.2d 374.

(1978) Court must make specific finding that marriage was irretrievably broken before granting a decree of dissolution, B.W. v. F.E.W. (A.), 562 S.W.2d 137.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Simpson v. Strong, 234 S.W.3d 567 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Simpson v. Strong, 234 S.W.3d 567 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 13× “In pertinent part, § 452.320 RSMo Cum.Supp. (1975) originally stated: 1.”

Brand v. Brand, 534 S.W.2d 628 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 7× “The appellant-mother asserts that the trial court erred: 1) in failing to find that the respondent-father had committed fraud upon the trial court at the dissolution of marriage proceeding by providing the court with an incorrect address of the mother for the purpose of sending…”

In Re the Marriage of Capstick, 547 S.W.2d 522 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 6× “” § 452.320 subsection 2. In such an instance the trial court is then required to consider all the relevant factors, including the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the petition and the prospect of reconciliation, and, after hearing the evidence, shall make a finding…”

In Re the Marriage of Bradford, 557 S.W.2d 720 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 4× “He advised the court that no pleading or motion had been filed in the Missouri proceeding because (1) the venue of the action was improperly laid, and (2) respondent’s Louisiana attorney had been led to believe that the effect of § 452.320, para. 1, RSMo Supp. 1975, 2 was to…”

Trunko v. Trunko, 642 S.W.2d 673 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “He further argues that the trial court erred by failing to find one of the five elements required by § 452.320, RSMo (1978). 1 We disagree. Section 452.”

Brown v. Brown, 609 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “The statute has been repealed and § 452.320 RSMo 1977 Supp. has been enacted.”

In Re the Marriage of Pate, 591 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 5× “However, it is clear from the argument portion of the appellant’s brief that her real complaint is based upon the failure of the judgment and decree to specifically find the existence of one of the five elements upon which the court must be satisfied under the terms of § 452.320…”

McCallister v. McCallister, 809 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “Thus we turn our examination to § 452.320 in its entirety. We believe the legislature contemplated three general categories of situations to be covered by § 452.”

B. W. v. F. E. W., 562 S.W.2d 137 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “” Section 452.320, RSMo Supp.1975 imposes a statutory duty on the court to “make a finding whether or not the marriage is irretrievably broken.”

Marriage of Royal v. Royal, 617 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “Appellant (wife) claims (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the marriage was irretrievably broken as a matter of law or in satisfaction of the requirements of § 452.320(2), RSMo 1978; (2) the court erred in the equal apportionment of the marital…”

In re the Marriage of Williams, 593 S.W.2d 648 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 9× “Husband next avers that the trial court erred in dissolving the marriage be *650 cause the court did not proceed in accord with Section 452.320, RSMo 1978. Section 452.320, subsection 1, states: “If both of the parties by petition or otherwise have stated under oath or…”

Olsen v. Reuter (In re Reuter), 499 B.R. 655 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2013). · cites it 2× “The petitioning spouse is required to prove the statutory elements set forth in Mo. Rev.Stat. § 452.320 before the trial court.”

Show all 44 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.320(1) — 5 cases

Brand v. Brand, 534 S.W.2d 628 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). “The appellant-mother asserts that the trial court erred: 1) in failing to find that the respondent-father had committed fraud upon the trial court at the dissolution of marriage proceeding by providing the court with an incorrect address of the mother for the purpose of sending…”

Brown v. Brown, 609 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). “The statute has been repealed and § 452.320 RSMo 1977 Supp. has been enacted.”

Brown v. Brown, 561 S.W.2d 374 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Rojas v. Rojas, 595 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

LeBeau v. LeBeau, 556 S.W.2d 204 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.320(2) — 5 cases

Marriage of Royal v. Royal, 617 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). “Appellant (wife) claims (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the marriage was irretrievably broken as a matter of law or in satisfaction of the requirements of § 452.320(2), RSMo 1978; (2) the court erred in the equal apportionment of the marital…”

Rojas v. Rojas, 595 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Brown v. Brown, 561 S.W.2d 374 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Stefacek v. Stefacek, 573 S.W.2d 670 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

Bishop v. Bishop, 521 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.320(2)(l) — 2 cases

In Re the Marriage of Capstick, 547 S.W.2d 522 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). “” § 452.320 subsection 2. In such an instance the trial court is then required to consider all the relevant factors, including the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the petition and the prospect of reconciliation, and, after hearing the evidence, shall make a finding…”

Stefacek v. Stefacek, 573 S.W.2d 670 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.320(2)(l)(b) — 1 case

Harper v. Harper, 4 S.W.3d 626 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

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.