MADDICK v. DeShon
2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1577, 296 S.W.3d 519, 2009 WL 3734177 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To overcome the statutory presumption that a maintenance obligation terminates upon the recipient spouse's remarriage, the dissolution decree or written agreement must expressly state that the obligation continues beyond remarriage; silence on the issue or a mere exclusionary inference from a list of other termination events is insufficient.
Facts:
- Joseph Maddick (Husband) and Roberta DeShon (Wife) were married in 1983 and their marriage was dissolved in 2003.
- The initial dissolution judgment required Husband to pay Wife $500 per month in modifiable maintenance.
- In 2004, the parties entered into a stipulation to modify the judgment, increasing maintenance to $750 per month for seven years as non-modifiable contractual maintenance.
- The 2004 stipulation stated, 'The maintenance obligation herein should terminate upon Respondent’s [Wife's] death.'
- The court entered a modified judgment based on this stipulation, decreeing that the maintenance 'shall only terminate upon the death of Respondent or September 30, 2011, whichever occurs first.'
- Wife remarried on September 29, 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Wife's remarriage, Husband filed a motion to modify the dissolution decree in the circuit court (trial court).
- Husband's motion sought to terminate his maintenance obligation.
- The circuit court conducted a hearing and entered a judgment sustaining Husband's motion and terminating the maintenance.
- Wife, as Appellant, appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Husband is the Respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a modified dissolution decree, which states that maintenance shall 'only' terminate upon the recipient's death or a specific date, rebut the statutory presumption that the maintenance obligation terminates upon the recipient's remarriage when the decree is silent on the effect of remarriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Ahuja, J.
No. A dissolution decree that is silent on the effect of remarriage does not rebut the statutory presumption that maintenance terminates upon the recipient's remarriage, even if it lists other termination events as exclusive. Under Missouri statute § 452.370.3, maintenance is presumed to terminate upon the recipient's remarriage unless the decree or agreement 'expressly provides' otherwise. Citing precedent from Cates v. Cates, the court held that an agreement must explicitly refer to remarriage and affirmatively state that payments will continue beyond that event to defeat the presumption. An inference drawn from the word 'only' or from a list of other terminating events is not a substitute for the required express statement. The court also rejected the wife's argument regarding stricken language in the original stipulation, ruling that stricken language is extrinsic evidence and cannot be used to create ambiguity in an otherwise unambiguous agreement that is silent on the issue of remarriage.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a bright-line rule requiring extreme clarity and specificity in dissolution agreements to override statutory presumptions. It solidifies the precedent from Cates, holding that implied intent or negative inferences are insufficient to continue maintenance post-remarriage. The ruling places a heavy burden on drafters to explicitly address statutory contingencies like remarriage, thereby promoting certainty and discouraging litigation over ambiguous decretal language. For practitioners, the case serves as a stark warning: if the parties intend for maintenance to survive remarriage, the agreement must say so directly and unambiguously.
