its award of child custody in accordance therewith. SPINDEN, C.J., and NEWTON, J., concur. 1 . All statutory references are to RSMo Supp. 1998, unless otherwise indicated. 2 . As to the $1,200 in coins taken by the respondent from the coin collection, by not ordering the respondent to account to the appellant for those coins, we can infer that the court considered this money to be a necessary expenditure on the part of the respondent for her living expenses following the parties' separation, especially in light of the fact that the appellant blocked the respondent from any access to the parties’ joint accounts and no award of temporary maintenance was entered until October 1995, leaving her without funds for two months. See Cofer v. Price-Cofer, 825 S.W.2d 369, 373 (Mo.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). 3 . As the jewelry, by the appellant’s own
holding that there was no meeting of the minds as to expenses in the parties contingency fee contract and therefore the attorneys claim for reimbursement of litigation expenses was rejected holding that in an agreement where the father agreed to pay reasonable expenses to the extent that such expenses are not provided by any scholarship grant or other assistance for his sons education those expenses did not include loan repayment because it was not one of the forms of enumerated assistance holding that debtors have the burden of proving that other necessary expenses on form b22c are actual reasonable and necessary expenses and that these expenses should be considered in light of schedule j and other relevant evidence holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid holding that necessary expenses such as living expenses are not considered a squandering or secreting of marital property such that reimbursement or a setoff should be ordered