452.325. Separation agreements authorized, effect of — orders for disposition of property, when — terms of agreement, how enforced. — 1. To promote the amicable settlement of disputes between the parties to a marriage attendant upon their separation or the dissolution of their marriage, the parties may enter into a written separation agreement containing provisions for the maintenance of either of them, the disposition of any property owned by either of them, and the custody, support and visitation of their children.
2. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation, the terms of the separation agreement, except terms providing for the custody, support, and visitation of children, are binding upon the court unless it finds, after considering the economic circumstances of the parties and any other relevant evidence produced by the parties, on their own motion or on request of the court, that the separation agreement is unconscionable.
3. If the court finds the separation agreement unconscionable, the court may request the parties to submit a revised separation agreement or the court may make orders for the disposition of property, support, and maintenance in accordance with the provisions of sections 452.330, 452.335 and 452.340.
4. If the court finds that the separation agreement is not unconscionable as to support, maintenance, and property:
(1) Unless the separation agreement provides to the contrary, its terms shall be set forth in the decree of dissolution or legal separation and the parties shall be ordered to perform them; or
(2) If the separation agreement provides that its terms shall not be set forth in the decree, only those terms concerning child support, custody and visitation shall be set forth in the decree, and the decree shall state that the court has found the remaining terms not unconscionable.
5. Terms of the agreement set forth in the decree are enforceable by all remedies available for the enforcement of a judgment, and the court may punish any party who willfully violates its decree to the same extent as is provided by law for contempt of the court in any other suit or proceeding cognizable by the court.
6. Except for terms concerning the support, custody or visitation of children, the decree may expressly preclude or limit modification of terms set forth in the decree if the separation agreement so provides.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
135
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case:
Richardson v. Richardson, 218 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. 2007).
Richardson v. Richardson, 218 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. 2007).
· cites it 19× “POINT ON APPEAL In his only point on appeal, Joseph asserts that “[t]he trial court erred in granting [Ida’s] ‘Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief could be Granted’, because the trial court misinterpreted Section 452.325 RSMo, 1 in that, consistent…”
Wilhoit v. Wilhoit, 599 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 9× “330] or by a separation agreement found nonunconscionable [§ 452.325] and so remained amenable to a completed judgment.”
Block v. Block, 593 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 9× “” This case does not require this court to reach or decide the issue of what is sufficient evidence of economic circumstances to justify a finding concerning conscionability.”
Bryson v. Bryson, 624 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 6× “Section 452.325, RSMo 1978 reads: “Separation agreements authorized, effect of— orders for disposition of property, when— terms of agreement, how enforced.”
Flanary v. Rowlett, 612 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 8× “The decree of dissolution, inter alia, contained a finding that the separation agreement was “not unconscionable” and its terms and provisions were set forth and incorporated in the decree of dissolution pursuant to Section 452.325, RSMo Supp. 1975. 1 Neither party filed any…”
Hughes v. Hughes, 505 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “3, that a dissolution decree “shall state [whether maintenance] is modifiable,” in a statute authorizing a court to award decretal maintenance, should be applied to all maintenance awards, including to awards of separation agreement decre-tal maintenance pursuant to section…”
Ferry v. Ferry, 586 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 6× “By reason of Section 452.325, where provision is made for contractual resolution of issues as to property disposition and maintenance under a separation agreement, public policy now favors such agreements and, indeed, the language of the statute expressly advocates this means to…”
Turpin v. Turpin, 570 S.W.2d 831 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 6× “d (and last) point, the husband-appellant urges that the Court erred in finding that the oral stipulation read into the record concerning division of marital property was not unconscionable and in adopting same because there was no evidence to support such finding and the court…”
Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte, 34 S.W.3d 387 (Mo. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Section 452.325 allows the trial court to incorporate the separation agreement into the decree, as done in this case, as long as it is not unconscionable.”
Brennan v. Brennan, 955 S.W.2d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 7× “He relies on Section 452.325 RSMo 1994, in arguing the court must accept or reject the agreement as a whole.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.325(1) — 2 cases
Richardson v. Richardson, 218 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. 2007).
“POINT ON APPEAL In his only point on appeal, Joseph asserts that “[t]he trial court erred in granting [Ida’s] ‘Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief could be Granted’, because the trial court misinterpreted Section 452.325 RSMo, 1 in that, consistent…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.325(2) — 15 cases
Block v. Block, 593 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
“” This case does not require this court to reach or decide the issue of what is sufficient evidence of economic circumstances to justify a finding concerning conscionability.”
Richardson v. Richardson, 218 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. 2007).
“POINT ON APPEAL In his only point on appeal, Joseph asserts that “[t]he trial court erred in granting [Ida’s] ‘Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief could be Granted’, because the trial court misinterpreted Section 452.325 RSMo, 1 in that, consistent…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.325(4) — 1 case
Richardson v. Richardson, 218 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. 2007).
“POINT ON APPEAL In his only point on appeal, Joseph asserts that “[t]he trial court erred in granting [Ida’s] ‘Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief could be Granted’, because the trial court misinterpreted Section 452.325 RSMo, 1 in that, consistent…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.325(6) — 4 cases
Richardson v. Richardson, 218 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. 2007).
“POINT ON APPEAL In his only point on appeal, Joseph asserts that “[t]he trial court erred in granting [Ida’s] ‘Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief could be Granted’, because the trial court misinterpreted Section 452.325 RSMo, 1 in that, consistent…”
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.