so there’s this Missouri case on alimony modification, right? It’s called Richardson v. Richardson.
So essentially, the exhusband in this situation got screwed over by his own hand because he insisted on a non-modification clause in the alimony part of the divorce decree. Basically, that means nobody’s allowed to change it, ever. You can’t change it for material circumstances, NOTHING.
BUT HE GOT SCREWED OVER, RIGHT, BECAUSE HIS EXWIFE WAS FUCKING BALLER
WHAT DID SHE DO?
SHE FUCKING HIRED HIT MEN AND THIEVES TO STEAL SHIT FROM HIS HOUSE AND KILL HIM.
I SHIT YOU NOT OMFG.
and you know what?
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI WAS LIKE “whelp, sorry dude”
like literally it does not get sassier than this opinion.
“A non-modification provision can cut both ways. No one can know which party will need more or deserve less as time passes.”
“unconscionability relative to contract law…is addressed at the time of inception or creation of the contract, NOT THEREAFTER.”
“…Joseph argues that Ida has waived her right to maintenance by attempting to have him killed because she knew that killing him would cut off maintenance obligation. Killing Joseph might have resulted in the termination of Ida’s ability to collect maintenance, but her alleged acts do not establish a clear and unequivocal attempt to relinquish her contractual right to maintenance so long as Joseph is living.”
Essentially, dude tried to argue that with fraud cases where you murder a person to get their will, it’s considered null and void.
But like nope nope nope the Court was like “sorry man”
None of these cases are analogue to the present case. In each of the above, the death of the victim was a PRECONDITION TO THE KILER RECEIVING THE BENEFIT. Here, Ida was alreayd entitled to maintenance. Because Joseph’s death would result in Ida no longer seeking maintenance, Ida would not profit in this regard if Joseph were murdered. This i s a different question than if Ida would be entitled to claim death benefits from an insurance policy or otherwise.”
And then the exhusband was desperately like “DON’T CONDONE THIS, THIS WILL ENCOURAGE MURDER AND SHIT”
And legit the court was like “This state’s criminal and tort laws already do that.”
Conclusion: if you get divorced in Missouri, and you get alimony, and your ex is a right asshole-ish motherfucker, you can hire a hitman to ATTEMPT TO KILL HIM and also steal his shit
…and you’ll still get your alimony.