Baldwin v. Baldwin, s. 66354

• Decision Date: 25 July 1995
• Docket Number: 66455,Nos. 66354,s. 66354
• Citation: 905 S.W.2d 521
• Parties: Lisa L. BALDWIN, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Richard J. BALDWIN, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 521

905 S.W.2d 521

Lisa L. BALDWIN, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Richard J. BALDWIN, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 66354, 66455.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Four.

July 25, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to

Supreme Court Denied Sept. 8, 1995.

W. Morris Taylor, William K. Meehan, W. Morris Taylor, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant/cross-respondent.

Alan C. Kohn, John A. Klobasa, Kohn, Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum, St. Louis, for respondent/cross-appellant.

KAROHL, Judge.

Lisa Baldwin appeals a decree of dissolution terminating her twenty-eight year marriage to Richard Baldwin. The trial court dissolved the marriage and awarded periodic maintenance to wife and separate property to both parties. It also distributed marital property and ordered the sale of the marital home and distribution of the proceeds. The trial court twice amended the maintenance award from the initial amount of $3,500 per month, to $5,000 per month, and then to $6,500 per month.

Wife asserts four points on appeal. She contends the trial court erred in: (1) ordering the sale of the marital home; (2) deducting $360,852 from the marital estate to account for future tax liability made necessary by 1986 tax code revisions on a tax shelter; (3) awarding wife only $6,500 maintenance; and (4) awarding husband certain bank accounts as separate property. Husband's cross-appeal challenges the award of maintenance. He contends wife does not meet the statutory requirements under § 452.335 RSMo 1986. He argues the court over valued his income. We affirm.

The parties were married on August 7, 1965. They had four children. Custody and support of the children is not at issue in this case. Husband began a medical practice as an orthopedic surgeon in 1974. He quit practicing medicine in 1988. The family was supported throughout the marriage with assets and income derived from trust funds husband received from his family.

Wife earned a bachelor's degree from Lindenwood College in 1964. She engaged in three different business ventures during the marriage. She worked as an interior garden designer for approximately two years beginning about 1974. Husband asked her to quit working and spend more time with the children. In approximately 1983, she studied gemology and formed a company that designed and sold jewelry. Later in about 1985, she helped form a partnership that allowed people to purchase lottery tickets from several different states. This venture went bankrupt.

The trial court ordered the parties to sell the marital home at # 1 Ladue Lane. It valued the home at $1,250,000 and awarded 45% of the net proceeds to wife and 55% of the net proceeds to husband. It ordered the listing value to decrease by $100,000 per month with a ceiling of $1,500,000 and a floor of $1,100,000. Wife argues the trial court erred in finding the real estate could not be divided in kind and the sale was in the best interest of one or both parties. Moreover, the very large house exceeds the reasonable need of wife where the children are emancipated or no longer living at home. We will not disturb the trial court's order unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

The sale of marital property is within the power of the trial court in a dissolution of a marriage action. Swinford v. Swinford, 682 S.W.2d 189 (Mo.App.1984). A trial court is vested with considerable discretion in dividing marital property. Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865, 869 (Mo. banc 1984). We will interfere with the decision only if the division of property is heavily and unduly weighted in favor of one party or amounts to an abuse of discretion. Id. There are two general conditions that are sought before a court orders a sale: (1) a finding that the property cannot be divided in kind, and (2) a finding that a sale would be in the best interest of one or both of the parties. Swinford, 682 S.W.2d at 191.

Wife asserts the court could have awarded the marital home to her in kind by some combination of assets and or cash. She also contends the listing value schedule established by the court imposed "erroneous and Draconian terms." The trial court found the parties' marital property had a total value of $1,454,298. This included the marital home with an estimated value of $1,250,000. The marital home accounted for approximately 86% of the marital assets. In addition, maintenance on the home was approximately $10,400 each month. The marital assets were insufficient to offset the value of the home if awarded to one party. The expense to maintain and the absence of marital assets made the sale in the best interest of the parties. The terms for sale protected both parties from an extended financial drain. The trial court did not abuse its discretion and its order of a sale disposed of the property in a manner fair to both parties. Breda v. Breda, 788 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Mo.App.1990).

Wife also contests the trial court's deduction of $360,852 from the marital estate for alleged tax liabilities. A trial court may consider tax consequences when dividing marital assets. Keller v. Keller, 877 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Mo.App.E.D.1994); Clark v. Clark, 801 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Mo.App.1990). It may not make deductions to the marital estate for estimated tax liabilities absent sufficient evidence to support its findings. Goller v. Goller, 758 S.W.2d 505 (Mo.App.1988). Husband presented evidence of the tax liability at trial. His accountant testified the deferred tax liability equalled $360,852. It would be due starting in 1997. The accountant also testified there were other variables that might mitigate the liability, including sale of the property. He stated that inquiries about sale of the property failed to find a buyer and there were no foreseeable buyers. The trial court was free to accept this evidence in evaluating the marital property. Hoffmann v. Hoffmann, 676 S.W.2d 817, 826 (Mo. banc 1984). It agreed with husband that "this is a realistic deduction from the marital assets." The evidence supported a finding there would be a tax liability. The only doubt was about the precise amount of the tax. In light of the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion in the reduction of the impending tax liability from the marital estate.

Both wife and husband contest the amount of the maintenance award. Wife requests maintenance be increased to $20,000 per month. Husband believes maintenance should be reduced to $1,000 per month or eliminated entirely. The trial court has broad discretion in awarding spousal maintenance. Mika v. Mika, 728 S.W.2d 280, 284 (Mo.App.1987); Mills v. Mills, 663 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Mo.App.1983). The amount of maintenance is based on need and ability to pay. Section 452.335 RSMo 1986. The trial court first awarded wife $3,500 per month. It then amended the award to $5,000 per month and ultimately awarded $6,500 per month. She will receive $78,000 per year.

Wife and husband lived in a large and expensive home. At various times they employed a yard man, cook and maid. Wife was responsible for maintaining and managing the marital residence. Maintenance of the property cost approximately $10,400 per month.

The trial court examined the conduct of the parties during the marriage. It found the couple's extravagant life style caused friction during the marriage. They belonged to numerous dinner and country clubs and travelled extensively throughout the world. Wife received $4,000 per month for household...