Angell v. Angell

• Decision Date: 29 May 1984
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Parties: Lenna Pauline ANGELL, Respondent, v. Robert Lee ANGELL, Appellant. 34762.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 147

674 S.W.2d 147

Lenna Pauline ANGELL, Respondent, v. Robert Lee ANGELL, Appellant.

No. WD 34762.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Western District.

May 29, 1984.

Motion For Rehearing and/or Transfer to

Supreme Court Overruled and Denied

July 31, 1984.

Application to Transfer Denied

Sept. 11, 1984.

Roy W. Brown, Bruce B. Brown, Kansas City, for appellant.

J.W. Roberts, St. Joseph, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, C.J., and SHANGLER and NUGENT, JJ.

TURNAGE, Chief Judge.

This appeal arises from a dissolution of a marriage which Lenna Angell obtained from Robert Angell. The court ordered the marriage dissolved and divided the property. While the dissolution was pending the court issued an order excluding Robert from the family home and restraining him from dealing with, disposing of, or concealing any marital property. Within the time allowed by law the court entered an amended judgment in the dissolution, and also entered a judgment holding Robert in contempt for violation of the restraining order. The court assessed a fine of $2,500 for the contempt payable to Lenna, together with attorney fees in favor of Lenna for the prosecution of the contempt.

Robert complains of the division of marital property and of the assessment of a fine for contempt. Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.

The court divided the marital property which consisted of real estate and a number of items of personalty. This court has stated that appellate courts should interfere with the distribution of property in a dissolution case only when convinced that there has been an abuse of discretion. Budzinski v. Budzinski, 632 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Mo.App.1982). A review of the record convinces this court that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the division of marital property. Robert complains that the trial court erroneously found the value of the real estate to be $61,000 subject to a $14,000 encumbrance when the parties had stipulated its value to be $75,000 subject to a $14,000 encumbrance. The value was fixed in the original judgment, but in the amended judgment the court did not assign a value for any item of property. No request was made pursuant to Rule 73.01(a)(2) that the court set the value of any item of property. Therefore, the court cannot be faulted for failing to assign values to items of property. Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.banc 1984). As stated, this court finds no abuse of discretion in the division of property and the judgment is affirmed. Colabianchi v. Colabianchi, 646 S.W.2d 61, 64[3, 4] (Mo. banc 1983).

The court entered a restraining order which prohibited Robert from entering the family home or from disposing of or concealing any marital property pursuant to § 452.315, RSMo 1978. Lenna filed a motion to hold Robert in contempt for violation of this order in which it was alleged Robert had entered the home and removed marital property. At the hearing on this motion Robert admitted that he rented a truck and hired two men to assist him in removing items of marital property from the home. There was a dispute as to whether or not Robert had removed all of the items which Lenna said were missing from the home and this dispute continued even after Robert admittedly returned some items which he had taken. Although Lenna testified that the value of items missing from the home after Robert's visit was $7,137, there is no evidence in the record as to the value of the items which Lenna contended were still missing after Robert returned some of the items.

Although the parties agree the contempt in this case was civil, the punishment of a $2,500 fine payable to Lenna bears a striking similarity to punishment which would be appropriate in criminal contempt.

A fine may be appropriate as a...