McVean v. McVean: What Parents and Attorneys Need to Know About Unilateral Career Changes During Divorce
Case: Joy Janelle McVean v. Anthony David McVean
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Case No: ED112557Decision Date: June 27, 2025
Disposition: Affirmed in all respects
What This Case Means for You
If you're going through a divorce in Missouri, a recent court decision provides crucial guidance on what happens when one spouse makes dramatic career and financial changes without consulting the other. The Missouri Court of Appeals just ruled on a case involving a husband who quit his long-term corporate job and withdrew $200,000 from the family's retirement account to start a restaurant business with friends—all without his wife's knowledge or consent.
This decision will significantly impact how Missouri courts handle similar situations involving:
Unilateral career changes during marriage dissolution
Unauthorized withdrawals from retirement accounts
Income imputation for support calculations
Property division when one spouse misuses marital assets
The Story Behind the Case
The Family Background
Anthony and Joy McVean were married for 23 years, from 2000 to 2021. They had two children together—one who had become an adult, and a younger son with special needs who cannot function independently or support himself. Joy worked part-time for the Rockwood School District, earning about $1,321 per month, while also serving as the primary caregiver for their special needs child. Anthony had built a 28-year career with McDonald's in management, earning around $70,000 annually with full benefits.
The Unilateral Decisions That Changed Everything
In April 2021, Anthony made a series of dramatic decisions that would ultimately destroy his marriage—all without consulting Joy:
What Anthony Did:
Quit his McDonald's job after 28 years, giving up health insurance, vacation benefits, 401(k) contributions, and a stable salary
Withdrew $200,000 from their marital 401(k) without Joy's knowledge or consent
Invested $140,000 of those funds in a restaurant business called "Old Town Smokehouse" with his friends (a married couple)
Changed the beneficiary on his business IRA from his wife Joy to his business partner's wife
Kept the remaining funds in a business account that Joy couldn't access
Anthony's Stated Justification: He claimed he "had to get out of McDonald's" because he preferred working long hours for himself rather than a corporation. He admitted he made these decisions unilaterally because he knew Joy wouldn't agree with them.
The Financial Reality
Anthony's income plummeted dramatically:
2019-2020: Earned approximately $70,000 annually at McDonald's
2021: Claimed income of $48,000 from the restaurant
2022: Testified his net income was only $24,000 from self-employment
Meanwhile, during the divorce proceedings, evidence showed Anthony:
Took expensive trips with his friends
Spent significant amounts of marital money at casinos
Lived with his parents to reduce his personal expenses
Had access to substantial funds despite claiming financial hardship
The Court's Analysis and Rulings
Issue 1: Income Imputation - UPHELD
Anthony's Argument: The court shouldn't base support on his old McDonald's salary because he had already quit before the divorce was filed, was working full-time at his restaurant, and wasn't trying to avoid parental responsibilities.
The Court's Response: The court rejected this argument entirely.
Legal Framework for Income Imputation
Missouri courts can "impute" income to a parent—meaning they can use a higher income figure than what the parent currently earns—when the evidence shows the parent has the capacity to earn more but voluntarily refuses to do so.
Key Factors Courts Consider:
Past, present, and anticipated earning capacity
Evidence of spending (which can indicate true earning potential)
Whether the career change was voluntary or involuntary
The timing and circumstances of employment changes
Efforts to find comparable employment
How the Court Applied These Factors
The court found several compelling reasons to impute Anthony's income at his McDonald's level:
Voluntary Career Change Without Justification:
Anthony chose to leave a stable, well-paying job with benefits
He made no effort to find another comparable corporate position
His only complaint about McDonald's was the hours, but he continued working the same long hours at his restaurant
Questionable Timing and Decision-Making:
The career change coincided with the marital separation
He withdrew massive amounts of marital funds without consultation
He prioritized his personal preferences over family financial security
Evidence of Earning Capacity:
28-year successful career in food service management
Substantial industry experience and qualifications
Demonstrated ability to earn $70,000+ annually
Evidence of access to funds despite claimed low income (casino spending, trips)
Court's Conclusion: Anthony was "obviously underemployed" by choice, and the court properly imputed his income by averaging his 2019-2020 McDonald's salaries.
Issue 2: Maintenance and Child Support - UPHELD
Anthony's Argument: Even with the imputed income, he couldn't afford to pay $1,000/month maintenance and $699/month child support while meeting his own reasonable needs.
The Court's Response: The court properly calculated both awards according to Missouri law.
Maintenance Calculation
Legal Requirements: Missouri courts can only award maintenance if:
The requesting spouse lacks sufficient property to meet reasonable needs, AND
They cannot support themselves through appropriate employment
If both conditions are met, courts must balance the requesting spouse's reasonable needs against the other spouse's ability to pay.
How the Court Applied This:
Joy's situation: $1,321 gross monthly income, $4,395 in reasonable monthly expenses = $3,353 monthly deficit
Anthony's situation: $5,891 imputed gross monthly income, $4,780 in reasonable expenses = $547 monthly surplus
Court's award: $1,000/month maintenance (less than Joy requested)
Result: Joy's deficit reduced to $2,353; Anthony has a $453 deficit
Why the Court's Decision Was Reasonable:
Joy was caring for a special needs child while working part-time
Anthony had demonstrated access to discretionary funds (casino spending, trips)
The court considered Anthony's conduct in withdrawing marital funds without consent
Anthony was living with his parents, reducing his actual expenses
Child Support Calculation
Missouri requires a two-step process using Form 14:
Calculate the presumed amount based on both parents' incomes
Determine if that amount is unjust or inappropriate
The Court's Calculation:
Used imputed income for Anthony ($5,891/month) minus maintenance obligation
Added maintenance to Joy's income for combined calculation
Applied standard Form 14 formula
Result: $699/month child support for special needs child
Issue 3: Property Division - UPHELD
Anthony's Argument: The property division was unfair because Joy received 58% while he only got 42%.
The Court's Response: Anthony's math was wrong, and the division was fair given the circumstances.
Legal Standard
Missouri courts have "great flexibility and discretion" in dividing marital property. The division doesn't have to be exactly equal, but must be "fair and equitable given the circumstances."
What Actually Happened
Anthony's Incorrect Calculation: He claimed Joy got $433,495 while he got $316,170.
The Court's Correction:
Anthony failed to account for his own share of the $200,000 he withdrew
The actual division was 51% to Joy, 49% to Anthony
Anthony received 100% of the restaurant business he funded with marital assets
Why This Division Was Fair:
Anthony had exclusive use of Joy's share of retirement funds since withdrawing them
He had invested marital funds in a business without her consent
Joy was awarded the first $100,000 of the 401(k) he had withdrawn, then equal division
The restaurant business (funded with marital money) was awarded entirely to Anthony
Key Legal Principles
When Courts Will Impute Higher Income
This case establishes that Missouri courts will impute income when parents voluntarily reduce their earning capacity, especially when:
Red Flags:
Making major career changes during marital difficulties
Failing to consult with spouse on financial decisions
Prioritizing personal preferences over family financial security
Demonstrating access to funds despite claimed poverty
Timing career changes with divorce proceedings
Protective Factors:
Involuntary job loss due to external economic forces
Good faith efforts to find comparable employment
Legitimate health or family reasons for career changes
Transparent communication with spouse about financial decisions
Maintenance and Support Calculations
The case demonstrates that courts will:
Consider both spouses' actual financial situations and needs
Look at spending patterns to assess true financial capacity
Account for one spouse's misconduct in financial decision-making
Balance competing needs while ensuring adequate support for children
Property Division Principles
Courts have broad discretion but will consider:
Misconduct involving marital assets
Each spouse's contribution to marital property
Future earning capacity differences
Needs of children, especially those with special needs
Exclusive use or control of marital assets during proceedings
Practical Applications
For Parents Going Through Divorce
If You're Considering a Career Change:
DO:
Consult with your spouse before making major employment decisions
Document legitimate reasons for any career changes
Maintain comparable income when possible
Keep detailed records of job search efforts if employment is lost
Consider how timing might appear to the court
Preserve marital assets during proceedings
DON'T:
Quit your job without discussion during marital difficulties
Withdraw retirement funds unilaterally
Make major financial decisions that benefit you at the family's expense
Change beneficiaries on accounts without discussing with your spouse
Assume the court will accept your stated reasons without scrutiny
Spend marital funds on discretionary items while claiming financial hardship
If Your Ex Makes Unilateral Financial Decisions:
Gather Evidence Of:
Unauthorized withdrawals from joint accounts
Changes to beneficiaries on insurance or retirement accounts
New business investments made with marital funds
Spending patterns that contradict claimed financial difficulties
The timing of career changes relative to marital problems
Their qualifications and typical earning capacity in their field
Document:
Your own financial needs and limitations
The impact of their decisions on the family's financial security
Any care responsibilities that limit your earning capacity
Evidence of their ability to earn higher income
For Family Law Attorneys
Income Imputation Strategy:
For the Requesting Party:
Document the timeline of employment changes relative to marital difficulties
Gather evidence of the opposing party's qualifications and industry standards
Present evidence of spending that contradicts claimed financial limitations
Establish patterns showing prioritization of self-interest over family welfare
Use historical tax returns and W-2s to demonstrate earning capacity
For the Defending Party:
Provide detailed documentation of legitimate reasons for career changes
Show good faith efforts to maintain comparable income
Present realistic current market conditions and earning capacity
Address any timing concerns proactively
Demonstrate genuine financial limitations through detailed expense documentation
Maintenance and Support Calculations:
Carefully document both parties' actual reasonable expenses
Consider care responsibilities that limit earning capacity
Present evidence of the requesting party's legitimate financial needs
Account for conduct that affects property division and support calculations
Use Form 14 calculations precisely while considering factors for rebuttal
Property Division Arguments:
Document any unauthorized use of marital assets
Present evidence of contributions to marital property accumulation
Consider future earning capacity differences in division arguments
Account for exclusive use or control of assets during proceedings
Address any commingling of separate and marital property
Broader Implications
This decision reinforces several important trends in Missouri family law:
Increased Scrutiny of Strategic Behavior
Courts are increasingly sophisticated in identifying and responding to attempts to manipulate the legal system through strategic underemployment or financial misconduct.
Protection of Financially Vulnerable Spouses
The decision shows courts will protect spouses who are disadvantaged by the other's unilateral financial decisions, especially when children with special needs are involved.
Emphasis on Good Faith in Financial Dealings
The case demonstrates that courts expect spouses to act in good faith regarding marital assets and will impose consequences for self-serving financial behavior.
Practical Approach to Child Support
Courts will ensure adequate support for children, especially those with special needs, even when the paying parent claims financial hardship.
Questions to Ask Your Attorney
If you're dealing with similar issues, consider discussing with your lawyer:
About Income and Employment:
How should I handle a necessary career change during divorce proceedings?
What evidence do we need to show legitimate vs. strategic employment decisions?
How do courts typically respond to voluntary career changes?
What documentation should I maintain regarding job searches or career decisions?
About Financial Misconduct:
What constitutes unauthorized use of marital assets?
How can we document financial misconduct by my spouse?
What remedies are available when a spouse misuses marital funds?
How do unilateral financial decisions affect property division?
About Support Calculations:
How will my care responsibilities for children affect maintenance calculations?
What expenses can be considered "reasonable needs" for support purposes?
How do courts handle situations where one spouse claims inability to pay?
What factors might justify deviating from standard support calculations?
Looking Forward
The McVean decision provides clear guidance that Missouri courts will not tolerate attempts to manipulate the divorce process through strategic career changes or unauthorized use of marital assets. The case particularly emphasizes:
Accountability for financial decisions made during marital difficulties
Protection of children's interests, especially those with special needs
Fair consideration of both spouses' actual financial situations
Consequences for attempting to gain unfair advantage through strategic behavior
Parents and attorneys should expect courts to carefully scrutinize the motivations behind major financial and career decisions made during divorce proceedings, with particular attention to timing, consultation with the other spouse, and the impact on the family's financial security.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This analysis is provided for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Family law cases are highly fact-specific, and the outcome of any particular case will depend on its unique circumstances. The McVean decision should be understood as establishing general principles that courts may apply, but each case must be evaluated based on its own facts and circumstances. If you are involved in a family law matter, you should consult with a qualified Missouri family law attorney who can evaluate your specific situation and provide appropriate legal counsel tailored to your individual circumstances. This summary should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal advice.