Carl Eugene Fisk, Jr., Appellant, v. Cynthia L. Fisk, Respondent.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Carl Eugene Fisk, Jr., Appellant, v. Cynthia L. Fisk, Respondent. Case Number: ED77833 Handdown Date: 05/29/2001 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Hon. Dennis Kehm Counsel for Appellant: Stanley J. Goodkin Counsel for Respondent: Thomas H. Nations Opinion Summary: Carl Eugene Fisk, Jr., ("husband") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County dissolving his marriage to Cynthia Fisk ("wife"). Husband challenges the court's orders regarding child custody, maintenance, child support and the division of property. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Division One holds : Section 452.335 RSMo, 2000, does not authorize an award of retroactive maintenance. The trial court therefore erred by awarding wife $15,860.00 as "spousal support" for the period of time between the date husband filed his petition for dissolution and the date of the dissolution decree. Citation: Opinion Author: Richard B. Teitelman, Judge Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. R. Dowd, Jr., P.J., and Rhodes Russell, J., concur. Opinion: Carl Eugene Fisk, Jr., ("husband") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County dissolving his marriage to Cynthia Fisk ("wife"). Husband challenges the court's orders regarding child custody, maintenance, child support and the division of property. We modify that portion of the decree awarding wife retroactive maintenance and

affirm as modified. Standard of Review The standard of review on appeal from a decree of dissolution of marriage is guided by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). Lewis v. Lewis, 930 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Mo.App. E.D. 1996). Accordingly, this court will affirm the judgment of the trial court if it is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). Moreover "[a]ll evidence and permissible inferences therefrom are considered in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, and all contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded." Chen v. Li, 986 S.W.2d 927, 931 (Mo.App. E.D.1999) (quoting In re Marriage of Gilmore, 943 S.W.2d 866, 871 (Mo.App. S.D.1997)). Discussion In his third point on appeal, husband contends that the trial court erred by awarding wife retroactive maintenance in violation of Section 452.335 RSMo 2000.(FN1) We agree. In its order, the trial court awarded wife $15,860.00 "as and for spousal support from and since the dated item of Petitioner's Petition herein." However, section 452.335 only authorizes awards of prospective maintenance. Ritter v. Ritter, 920 S.W.2d 151, 154 (Mo.App. W.D. 1996); Grubb v. Lehn, 841 S.W.2d 768, 770 (Mo.App. E.D. 1992). Consequently, as a matter of law, a maintenance award entered pursuant to section 452.335 cannot be made retroactive. Ritter, 920 S.W.2d at 154. The trial court's award of $15,860.00 to wife as "spousal support" from and since the date of husband's petition must therefore be stricken from the judgment. Our review of the record reveals that the remainder of the trial court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Husband's remaining claims are therefore denied pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Conclusion The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, except that the award of retroactive maintenance shall be modified to exclude the $15,860.00 award of retroactive maintenance to wife. Footnotes: FN1. Husband has limited his appeal to the award of $15,860.00 as "spousal support." He does not appeal the award of $1,586.00 per month in prospective maintenance.

Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.