relevant factors under section 452.335.2. After the court makes its decision to grant or deny Wife’s request for maintenance, the court should then determine whether the maintenance order should be modifiable or non-modifiable. Section 452.335.3. Because of the passage of time since the case was tried, the trial court may receive additional evidence of the present circumstances in determining all of these issues. See Burnett v. Burnett, 18 S.W.3d 27, 33 (Mo.App.2000). Wife’s first point on appeal is granted. Since this court is reversing and remanding for the trial court to reconsider the maintenance order in its entirety, Wife’s remaining two points concerning the impact of her income from employment on her eligibility for maintenance and the mo-difiability of the maintenance order (<HOLDING>); True v. True, 762 S.W.2d 489, 492-93
holding that separate property may become marital property if spouse donates it to marital unit with intent at time of donation that property become marital holding that separate property valued at 45000 was transmuted to marital property when improved by 3800 of marital 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 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