Appealing Unequal Asset Division in Divorce

Courts in Missouri are not required by law to divide marital assets equally, but rather only equitably, thus making Missouri an “equitable distribution state.”  The State Statute concerning property division in dissolution of marriage (divorce) is Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.330 “Disposition of property and debts, factors to be considered.”  According to the statute, a Judge shall divide the marital assets and marital debts in such proportions as the Judge deems just after considering all relevant factors including:

 (1)  The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the spouse having custody of any children;

 (2)  The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property, including the contribution of a spouse as homemaker;

 (3)  The value of the nonmarital property set apart to each spouse;

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

  (5)  Custodial arrangements for minor children.

With that said, Missouri case law has suggests Courts should aim for substantially equal division of marital assets and debts, unless one of the above 5 factors renders an equal division unjust. Complicated property division is one of the reasons why it's important to hire an experienced family law attorney to represent you in your divorce.

The application of this state statute was put to a test in a recent case out of St. Louis which was appealed to the Eastern District of Missouri Court of Appeals, which ultimately denied the appeal and upheld the Trial Judge's decision regarding how the marital assets were divided.

On January 27, 2026 the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals issued its ruling in an appeal regarding division of assets from a divorce between two men in the St. Louis area. In the case, Komes vs. Grote, Komes was 21 and Grote was 35 when the two parties met online. Following a short several year marriage, the parties divorced and Grote was awarded nearly all of the assets and debts. Grote was awarded both homes, the home mortgages and 95% of the substantial credit card debt (over $100,000.).

The parties owned two homes, one which they resided in and one was a rental property. They were married in September of 2019 and the divorce was made final in 2024. Between the two parties existed a substantial difference in assets and ability to earn income. In 2020, Grote earned approximately $462,000 as a real estate agent, while Komes earned around $8000 working part-time while pursuing his undergraduate college degree. Although both homes and the mortgages were titled jointly listing both parties names, it is important to note that all of the funds used to purchase the properties came from funds Grote had prior to the marriage. Also of interest, while Grote was out of the country, and in violation of a Court order that neither party harass or disturb the other’s peace or conceal and property, Komes broke into Grote’s home and took a bunch of property and hauled it away in a U-Haul rental truck.

When a decision from a circuit court judge (trial judge) is appealed by one of the parties, the appellate court has a method of reviewing cases known as the standard of review. The appellate review guidelines regarding cases of asset and debt distribution in dissolution of marriage are as follows.

1.        Appeals courts will affirm a trial court’s judgment in a dissolution action if the decision is supported by substantial evidence, not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law.

2.        Appeals courts review the division of marital property for an "abuse of discretion." The trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is “clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock one’s sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful consideration. As you can see, the bar which must be overcome to get a Court of Appeals to intervene in property division is high.

3.         “The division of property is presumed to be correct and the party challenging the division bears the burden of overcoming the presumption.” Id. at 904-905. Lopsided property divisions are not a per se abuse of discretion and if reasonable people can disagree regarding the trial court’s actions, no abuse of discretion has occurred. Collins v. Collins, 875 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Mo. App. 1994).

In point one, Komes argues the trial court’s 87% - 13% property split is an abuse of discretion because Missouri law generally requires an equal division absent statutory factors that Komes claims are absent here. We disagree. This property split, albeit lopsided, is within the court’s discretion given its consideration of section 452.330.1’s property division factors including that Grote brought nearly all of the marital assets into the marriage and Komes engaged in marital misconduct when he broke into Grote’s residence and removed property. “As a general proposition, the court’s division of marital property should be substantially equal unless one of the statutory factors renders such a division unjust.” Travis v. Travis, 163 S.W.3d 43, 46-47 (Mo. App. 2005). Simply, the division must “be fair and equitable given the circumstances of the case.” Nelson v. Nelson, 25 S.W.3d 511, 517 (Mo. App. 2000). And trial courts act within their discretion when giving credit to parties for their non-marital financial contributions to the marital residence. Plager v. Plager, 426 S.W.3d 689, 694 (Mo. App. 2014).

The Eastern Missouri Court of Appeals denied Komes’ appeal and stated although the division of marital assets and debts was lopsided, the Appellate Court couldn’t do anything about the Trial Court’s decision because the decision is within the guidelines set forth in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.330.  The Court of appeals maintained that the unequal distribution of assets decided by the Trial Court was acceptable because of the source of funds rule and alleged marital misconduct. The source of funds rule allowed the Court to unequally divided the real estate in favor of Grote because all of the money used to purchase the properties came from Grote. Grote was the source of the funds.  Secondly, the Court found marital misconduct occurred when Komes broke into Grote’s house and loaded up assets in his U-Haul.

The point of this article is to illustrate: 1. Missouri Judges do not have to divide marital assets equally, and 2. Missouri Appeals Courts are not so quick to reverse unequal asset division judgments in dissolution of marriage cases. In formulating Missouri Laws, the legislature has given Courts considerable leeway in determining just what is “equitable.” The Men's Center for Domestic Resolution is a family law office designed to help men through divorce, child custody disputes and other family law matters.