record shows the parties had been married since 1977. Husband did not introduce any evidence that any of the investments, the income used to fund the investments, or other funds were his separate property; nor did he allege these items were his non-marital property. Based on the record before this Court, it appears that all of the investment income and retirement benefits at issue were marital in nature in that “all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage” is considered to be marital property subject to division. § 452.330.2. As such, the parties’ investments and other benefits could properly be divided by the trial court regardless of whether or not Husband was the sole spouse earning the income that was used to acquire the properties. Davis, 107 S.W.3d at 433 (<HOLDING>); In re Marriage of Cranor, 78 S.W.3d 150, 155
holding that tjhere is a strong legal presumption that all property acquired during marriage is community property holding that an increase in the value of nonmarital property attributable to the efforts of one or both spouses during marriage is marital property holding that retirement benefits are marital property because they would be a form of deferred compensation funded by money earned during the parties marriage holding that money invested in voluntary investment plan during marriage was marital property because it was property acquired during marriage holding that the trial court committed manifest error by substituting its judgment for that of a valid and enforceable contractual agreement between the parties when it awarded wife nearly half the value of specific assets acquired during the marriage in disregard of antenuptial agreement calling for husband to take 23 and wife to take 13 of property acquired during the marriage