Ansley, Jr., v. Ansley

• Decision Date: 29 February 2000
• Citation: 15 S.W.3d 28
• Parties: (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) . Eugene Baldwin Ansley, Jr., Respondent, v. Joan Marie G. Ansley, Appellant. WD56342 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date: 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

15 S.W.3d 28 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000)

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Eugene Baldwin Ansley, Jr., Respondent, v. Joan Marie G. Ansley, Appellant.

WD56342

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

Handdown Date: 02/29/2000

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Christine Theresa Sill-Rogers

Counsel for Appellant: James T. Cook

Counsel for Respondent: Linda Faye Turley Dycus

Opinion Summary:

Joan Ansley (Wife) appeals the trial court's judgment and decree of dissolution of her marriage to Eugene Ansley (Husband). Wife alleges the trial court erred: (1) in failing to award spousal maintenance to Wife because her only assets were non-income producing assets and the evidence established that Wife had been out of the workforce for a number of years and that her job skills were insufficient to support herself without maintenance; (2) in ordering Wife to be solely responsible for the monthly mortgage payments and upkeep on the marital residence pending its sale, because doing so forced Wife to dissipate her marital and non-marital assets, resulting in a windfall to Husband; (3) in setting aside to Husband certain investment accounts as his non-marital property because the only reliable evidence established that the accounts were acquired during the marriage; and (4) in failing to award Wife attorney's fees because the evidence showed that Wife did not have sufficient resources to pay her attorney's fees and Husband's financial condition was far superior to Wife's financial condition.

AFFIRMED.

Division One holds: The trial court did not err in denying Wife's request for maintenance. A trial court may award maintenance only if the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property to provide for his or her reasonable needs and is unable to meet his or her reasonable needs through appropriate employment. Here, the record shows that Wife had the education, skills and ability to supplement her dividend and interest income earned on her personal and marital assets through employment, and that these sources of funds, in addition to child support and the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, were sufficient to meet her reasonable needs.

The trial court did not err in ordering Wife to be solely responsible for the monthly mortgage payments, taxes, utilities, insurance premiums, and any necessary repairs on the marital residence pending its sale. The record shows the parties planned to sell the marital residence as early as the Spring of 1996, yet, at the time of the second amended judgment in July 1998, the residence had not yet been sold. Placing the burden of the monthly mortgage payments on Wife obviously was a method by which the court could encourage Wife to sell the residence and to obtain fuller employment. Although Wife had to utilize marital funds apportioned to her in the dissolution to make the payments, the court awarded to Wife 90% of the proceeds generated by the sale, essentially reimbursing to her any depletion of her assets. The trial court did not err in setting aside certain investment IRAs to Husband as his non-marital property. Although the IRAs were acquired after marriage, Husband claimed the IRAs were his separate non-marital property, asserting that he purchased the IRAs with old investment accounts acquired prior to marriage that had always been kept separate, with no marital funds added to the investments. Although Wife disputed this evidence, the trial court was free to believe Husband's testimony over Wife's, and thus, conclude that no marital funds were expended on the purchase of the IRAs.

The trial court did not err in failing to award Wife attorney's fees. An award of attorney's fees is permitted in dissolution cases after consideration of all relevant factors, including the financial resources of both parties. It is within the court's discretion whether or not to award attorney's fees. Wife emphasizes her need for attorney's fees because Husband's income is substantially greater than Wife's income. Wife's financial need is only one factor to consider, however. In any event, Wife does not cite to any authority indicating that the court could not consider her award of non-martial stock valued between $483,000 and $662,000 in determining whether she could afford to pay attorney's fees. Considering these liquid assets and her imputed income of $25,000 per year, and considering Husband's various obligations, including child support and the high cost of the children's private education for which he is fully responsible, the denial of Wife's request does not appear so unreasonable so as to shock one's sense of justice.

Opinion Author: Laura Denvir Stith, Presiding Judge

Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Howard and Newton, J.J., concur.

Opinion:

Joan Ansley (Wife) appeals the trial court's judgment and decree of dissolution of her marriage to Eugene Ansley (Husband). Wife alleges the trial court erred: (1) in failing to award spousal maintenance to Wife because her only assets were non-income producing assets and the evidence established that Wife had been out of the workforce for a number of years and that her job skills were insufficient to support herself without maintenance; (2) in ordering Wife to be solely responsible for the monthly mortgage payments and upkeep on the marital residence pending its sale, because doing so forced Wife to dissipate her marital and non-marital assets, resulting in a windfall to Husband; (3) in setting aside to Husband certain investment accounts as his non-marital property because the only reliable evidence established that the accounts were acquired during the marriage; and (4) in failing to award Wife attorney's fees because the evidence showed that Wife did not have sufficient resources to pay her attorney's fees and Husband's financial condition was far superior to Wife's financial condition. Because we find that the trial court acted within its discretion in resolving the property, maintenance and attorney's fee issues, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Joan Ansley (Wife) and Eugene Ansley (Husband) were married on November 22, 1980, in Atlanta, Georgia. At the time of the marriage, both Wife and Husband were gainfully employed. Husband had a successful career in the banking industry. Wife had a Bachelor's Degree in Economics and a Masters of Business Administration in Finance and worked as a manager in the area of computer software development. In April 1983, Husband and Wife had their first child, Eugene III, and Wife quit her job in order to stay at home. A second child, William, was born in September 1984.

In January 1990, Husband was transferred to a position in the Kansas City area. The family purchased a $425,000 home in Kansas City, Missouri and enrolled the children at Pembroke Hill School. Wife remained at home to care for the children, but participated in several volunteer activities, including administrative work at the Pembroke Hill school office, and computer work for the Junior League. In 1995, Husband was laid off from his place of employment and was given a severance package for the remainder of the year. In January 1996, Husband took a new job in Atlanta, Georgia. Wife and the two children remained in Kansas City, but were to move to Atlanta to be with Husband as soon as the marital residence was sold. In April 1996, before the house was sold, Husband told Wife that he no longer wanted to remain married. In July 1996, Husband filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in Jackson County, Missouri.

From the date of filing until the dissolution hearing was held on November 13, 1997, Wife remained unemployed. She said she did so in order to prepare the home before placing it on the market for sale. Husband sent Wife approximately $6,000 per month during this time in order to assist Wife with expenses, including the $2,500 monthly mortgage payment on the house. In August 1996, Husband's monthly payments to Wife ceased due to the fact the funds from his severance pay had been depleted. Husband, however, continued to pay the mortgage payment on the marital residence through July 1997. Since August 1997, Wife has been responsible for the mortgage payments.

Following the hearing on November 13, 1997, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the Ansleys' marriage. The court awarded Husband and Wife joint legal custody and joint physical custody of the two children. Husband was ordered to pay the full cost of the children's tuition at Pembroke Hill, as well as $1,036 each month for child support, with full abatement of support during the summer months during which the children were to stay with Husband in Atlanta. The court accepted Husband's proposed division of marital property, awarded the non-marital property, denied Wife's request for $2,500 in monthly maintenance and denied Wife's request for attorney's fees.

Wife filed post-trial motions. On March 10, 1998, the court heard additional evidence which showed, primarily, that the marital residence had not yet been sold, and Wife had begun part-time employment at a retail luggage store earning $6.50 per hour. The court entered an amended judgment of dissolution on May 11, 1998. In its amended judgment, the court entered new findings relating to the denial of Wife's request for maintenance, specifically addressing Wife's ability to become self-sufficient through employment. The court also increased Husband's monthly child support payments to $1,594 per month, ordered the sale of the marital residence, with Wife responsible for all mortgage payments and other costs pending the sale, and allocated 90% of the proceeds from the sale to Wife, and the remaining 10% to Husband. The court further addressed the classification of certain investments as marital or non-marital. It found a Northwest Mutual Life Insurance policy to be marital property, and a Scudder and a Fidelity IRA to be...