Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.335 (2026)

Maintenance order, findings required for

✓ current as of May 2026

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

452.335. Maintenance order, findings required for — termination date, may be modified, when. — 1. In a proceeding for nonretroactive invalidity, dissolution of marriage or legal separation, or a proceeding for maintenance following dissolution of the marriage by a court which lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse, the court may grant a maintenance order to either spouse, but only if it finds that the spouse seeking maintenance:

(1) Lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to him, to provide for his reasonable needs; and

(2) Is unable to support himself through appropriate employment or is the custodian of a child whose condition or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the home.

2. The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just, and after considering all relevant factors including:

(1) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to him, and his ability to meet his needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party as custodian;

(2) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment;

(3) The comparative earning capacity of each spouse;

(4) The standard of living established during the marriage;

(5) The obligations and assets, including the marital property apportioned to him and the separate property of each party;

(6) The duration of the marriage;

(7) The age, and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance;

(8) The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance;

(9) The conduct of the parties during the marriage; and

(10) Any other relevant factors.

3. The maintenance order shall state if it is modifiable or nonmodifiable. The court may order maintenance which includes a termination date. Unless the maintenance order which includes a termination date is nonmodifiable, the court may order the maintenance decreased, increased, terminated, extended, or otherwise modified based upon a substantial and continuing change of circumstances which occurred prior to the termination date of the original order.

--------

(L. 1973 H.B. 315 § 8, A.L. 1988 H.B. 1272, et al.)

(1975) For extensive discussion of the law under this section, see In re Marriage of Powers (A.), 527 S.W.2d 949.

(1976) This section does not apply to modification of existing dissolution decree but only to original decree. Modifications are governed by § 453.370. Sifers v. Sifers (A.), 544 S.W.2d 269.

(1976) For discussion of "abuse of discretion" and items to be considered in making property settlements, support and attorney's fee awards, see Beckman v. Beckman (A.), 545 S.W.2d 300.

(1977) Held, trial court erred in making a periodically decreasing or "stairstepped" award. Modifications must not be made on speculation. In re Marriage of Cornell (A.), 550 S.W.2d 823.

(1977) Appellate court held that under the circumstances wife, though guilty of misconduct, was entitled to greater proportion of marital property and a continuation, after dissolution of marriage, of maintenance of $375.00 a month awarded by trial court. Marriage of Schulte (A.), 546 S.W.2d 41.

(1977) Held, "reasonable needs" does not automatically equal the standard of living established during the marriage. There is an affirmative duty on the part of a spouse seeking dissolution to seek employment. Brueggemenn v. Bureggemann (A.), 551 S.W.2d 853.

(1977) Maintenance in gross may be awarded under this section. Miller v. Miller (A.), 553 S.W.2d 482.

(1977) Statute allowing award of maintenance in gross was not repealed by the dissolution of marriage statutes and § 452.335 does not preclude award of maintenance in gross. Carr v. Carr (A.), 556 S.W.2d 511.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 514 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Archdekin v. Archdekin, 562 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Archdekin v. Archdekin, 562 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. 2018). · cites it 25× “Likewise, the trial court's retroactive award of maintenance in the interlocutory judgments was erroneous because a retroactive maintenance award is not authorized under section 452.335. 1 Nevertheless, although the need for and amount of maintenance was erroneously determined…”

Hammer v. Hammer, 139 S.W.3d 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 18× “Section 452.335 prescribes the approach the court is to take in determining maintenance.”

Cates v. Cates, 819 S.W.2d 731 (Mo. 1991). · cites it 18× “Section 452.335, RSMo 1986, outlines the factors that a court must consider before awarding a spouse maintenance.”

Cohen v. Cohen, 178 S.W.3d 656 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 15× “The trial court did make a written finding that Wife’s reasonable expenses were greater than her income from employment and property, which addresses the issue of whether Wife was able to support herself through appropriate employment and lacked sufficient property to provide…”

Brueggemann v. Brueggemann, 551 S.W.2d 853 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 12× “Maintenance — Section 452.335 2 now controls questions of maintenance in dissolution proceedings.”

In Re Marriage of Michel, 142 S.W.3d 912 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 12× “First, Husband argues that the trial court erred in failing to include a termination date for Wife’s maintenance in the amended judgment “because Section 452.335 mandates a termination date and the failure of the trial court to include one is an erroneous application of the law.”

Buchholz v. Buchholz, 166 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “In accordance with the evidence presented, the Court finds that [Wife] lacks sufficient property, including property apportioned to her, to provide for her needs, and that after considering all relevant factors including those set out in Section 452.335 RSMo., [Husband] should…”

Farley v. Farley, 51 S.W.3d 159 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 12× “He failed to properly raise the issue in his pleadings and all attempts to inject the issue at trial were met with sufficient objections from [Wife]. At any rate and had the matter been properly preserved, the evidence did not support such an award.”

Doerflinger v. Doerflinger, 646 S.W.2d 798 (Mo. 1983). · cites it 12× “In view of all the relevant factors enumerated in Section 452.335, V.A.M.S., the Court finds that the respondent should have an award of maintenance to meet her reasonable needs until she can get established in her new mode of life.”

In Re Marriage of Vanet, 544 S.W.2d 236 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 11× “To supplement this contention, the husband argues that the amount awarded for maintenance ignores consideration of subparagraph (1) of paragraph 2 of Section 452.335, RSMo Supp. 1973 (the wife’s “financial resources” and her ability to meet her “needs independently”) and…”

Evans v. Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “Husband also does not respond to this argument, beyond his suggestion that the trial court’s division of property was appropriate within the statutory factors of § 452.335, RSMo. Wife’s second point claims that the division of property is not supported by substantial evidence,…”

Hal Orange v. Jeanine R. White, 502 S.W.3d 773 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “Second, Husband alleges the trial court erred in awarding maintenance in the amount of $350 per month because the award was unjust, pursuant Section 452.335, and against the weight of the evidence in that the court failed to consider his current income when it only averaged his…”

Show all 514 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.335(1) — 9 cases

Neu v. Neu, 167 S.W.3d 791 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

State Ex Rel. Horridge v. Pratt, 563 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

Beckman v. Beckman, 545 S.W.2d 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

McKee v. McKee, 940 S.W.2d 946 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Marriage of Spicer v. Spicer, 585 S.W.2d 126 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.335(1)(1) — 1 case

In Re the Marriage of Schulte, 546 S.W.2d 41 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.335(1)(2) — 1 case

In Re Marriage of Stuart, 805 S.W.2d 309 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.335(2) — 7 cases

In Re Marriage of Medlock, 749 S.W.2d 437 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Starrett v. Starrett, 703 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).

In Re the Marriage of Hunt, 933 S.W.2d 437 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Stark v. Stark, 539 S.W.2d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

S v. S., 595 S.W.2d 357 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.335(2)(6) — 1 case

Brown v. Brown, 537 S.W.2d 434 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.335(3) — 2 cases

Hal Orange v. Jeanine R. White, 502 S.W.3d 773 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). “Second, Husband alleges the trial court erred in awarding maintenance in the amount of $350 per month because the award was unjust, pursuant Section 452.335, and against the weight of the evidence in that the court failed to consider his current income when it only averaged his…”

Harper v. Harper, 764 S.W.2d 480 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.335(7) — 1 case

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.