Alabach v. Alabach
Citation | 478 S.W.3d 511 |
Decision Date | 15 December 2015 |
Docket Number | No. ED 101983,ED 101983 |
Parties | Daniel J. Alabach, Appellant, v. Lisa A. Alabach, Respondent. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Cherlyn M. Crosby, Three Cityplace Dr., Suite 600, St. Louis, MO 63141, for appellant.
Christopher Karlen, 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 325, Clayton, MO 63105, for respondent.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Patricia L. Cohen, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
Daniel Alabach (Husband) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dissolving his marriage to Lisa Alabach (Wife). Husband claims the trial court erred in: (1) awarding maintenance to Wife (Point I); (2) calculating maintenance (Points II and III); (3) awarding Wife a marital interest in the equity of the marital residence (Point IV); calculating Wife's interest in the marital residence (Point V); dividing and calculating the parties' marital interests in a rental property (Points VI—VIII); awarding Wife a marital interest in his life insurance policies (Point IX); dividing and distributing three marital accounts (Point X); and awarding Wife attorneys' fees (Point XI). We reverse and remand as to Husband's Point X. With respect to the remaining points, we affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).1
Husband and Wife married in June 2007. Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in April 2013, and Wife filed an answer and counter-petition in June 2014.
On January 1, 2014, the trial court conducted a trial on the parties' petitions for dissolution. At the start of the hearing, the trial court announced that the parties had "been working this morning and they have resolved certain items, but not everything," and requested the parties "put [the agreement] on the record." Counsel for Wife proceeded to recite the parties' stipulations, which provided, in pertinent part:
Counsel for both parties affirmed that the "stipulation is binding upon both parties" and "that's how [they would] prepare a division of property for a proposed judgment[.]" When Wife's counsel inquired whether the trial court wanted the parties "to provide [it] with the amounts for all of those accounts through testimony or just exchange them to each other?," the trial court answered, "You've all been working on those numbers, so I'm just going to let you give them to me by a joint stipulation when you do a proposed division of [sic] judgment."
Wife's counsel informed the trial court that unsettled issues remained relating to the Wild Horse Creek property and Wife's interest in the marital residence. When Wife's counsel stated that the parties would present evidence of marital misconduct, the trial court advised that it was "not going to be bound by [the stipulated] property division" because evidence of marital misconduct might impact the property division as well as maintenance.
Husband and Wife both testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of evidence, the trial court asked each party to submit "a proposed judgment and findings because I'm somewhat confused by your earlier stipulation and how it's going to tie into what I'm supposed to be doing."
On February 21, 2014, the trial court entered its judgment of dissolution of marriage. Husband and Wife filed motions to amend the judgment, and the trial court heard additional evidence on July 1, 2014.
The trial court entered an amended judgment on August 19, 2014. In the amended judgment, the trial court determined it would "abide by the stipulation that was placed on the record...." The trial court also found that the Tag Group money market account, which contained approximately $10,000, was marital property. Husband appeals.
"Our standard of review in a dissolution action is governed, as in any court-tried case, by the standard set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)." Wennihan v. Wennihan, 452 S.W.3d 723, 727 (Mo.App.W.D. 2015) (quotation omitted). "We will affirm the decree of dissolution unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law." Id. (quotation omitted).
In Point X, Husband argues that the trial court erred in "dividing certain marital property because the trial court's values are inaccurate in that the values are contradictory to the evidence." More specifically, Husband challenges the trial court's division of the Tag Group money market account, E–Trade Account No. 5015, and the SEP Account No. 1805. Wife agrees that the trial court erred in its division of the E–Trade account "because it did not follow the parties' stipulation," but asserts that the trial court properly divided the other accounts.
The trial court has broad discretion in identifying, valuing, and dividing marital property. Cule v. Cule, 457 S.W.3d 858, 864–65 (Mo.App.E.D. 2015) ; Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 701 (Mo.App.E.D. 2010). "We presume that the trial court's division of property is correct, and the party opposing the division bears the burden of overcoming this presumption." Stroh v. Stroh, 454 S.W.3d 351, 363 (Mo.App.S.D. 2014) (quotation omitted). "We will interfere with the trial court's distribution of marital property only if the division is so heavily and unduly weighted in favor of one party that it amounts to an abuse of discretion." Valentine v. Valentine, 400 S.W.3d 14, 23–24 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013).
"Error in classifying property is not necessarily prejudicial unless it materially affects the merits of the action." Stroh, 454 S.W.3d at 363. In other words, "[t]he mere erroneous classification of property where the decree is nonetheless fair, will not require a reversal." Id. For this reason, our courts have held that "[a]bsent a contention in the point relied on that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McQueen v. Gadberry
... ... Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Alabach v. Alabach , 478 S.W.3d 511, 513 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Accordingly, we will affirm the trial court's judgment unless there is no substantial ... ...
-
Parciak v. Parciak
... ... "The trial court has broad discretion in identifying, valuing, and dividing marital property." Alabach v. Alabach , 478 S.W.3d 511, 513 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). This Court will interfere with the trial court's distribution of marital property only if the ... ...
-
L.R.S. v. C.A.S.
... ... Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Alabach v. Alabach , 478 S.W.3d 511, 513 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (" Alabach I "). Accordingly, the dissolution judgment will be affirmed unless it is not ... ...
-
Landewee v. Landewee
... ... App. W.D. 2008)."The trial court has broad discretion in identifying, valuing, and dividing marital property." Alabach v. Alabach , 478 S.W.3d 511, 513 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). This Court will interfere with the trial court's distribution of marital property only if the ... ...