not be addressed. Y. Conclusion The trial court did not err in identifying, valuing, or dividing the parties’ property. Those portions of the judgment are affirmed. The record is insufficient for this court to determine whether Wife’s income-producing property is adequate to meet her reasonable needs. Therefore, the maintenance order is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court to reconsider the maintenance issue. All concur. 1 . All statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri 2000. 2 . Generally, income tax is not owed on an inheritance. In this case, however, the parties’ 1992 joint income tax return designated Wife's inheritance of $685,285 as income from IRA distributions, and income tax was paid on it. 3 . Husband cites Beckham, 41 S.W.3d at 912-14 (<HOLDING>); Cuda v. Cuda, 906 S.W.2d 757, 759
holding that home purchased with spouses separate funds prior to marriage was transmuted into marital property because mortgage payments made from joint account home was used as marital residence and both parties devoted resources and energy into home holding that furniture and furnishings for marital residence purchased with separate funds were transmuted into marital property because they were acquired and treated as communal property holding that home purchased with separate funds and titled in one spouses name was transmuted into marital property because home was used as marital residence and the other spouse contributed to payments and repairs on home holding that separate property valued at 45000 was transmuted to marital property when improved by 3800 of marital property holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments