Beck v. Fleming, No. ED 84457 (MO 11/9/2004)
| Decision Date | 09 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 84457,ED 84457 |
| Parties | JOHN BECK, Petitioner/Respondent, v. ANN FLEMING, Respondent/Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Honorable Joseph A. Goeke, III.
Maia Brodie, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Daniel Robert Sokol, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before George W. Draper, III, C.J., William H. Crandall, Jr. J.,(writer) and Clifford H. Ahrens, J.
Ann Fleming (Wife) appeals from the judgment of the circuit court granting John Beck's (Husband) Motion to Dismiss the Motion to Enforce Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. On appeal, Wife contends the trial court erred in: (1) finding the judgment was presumed paid on June 24, 1998; (2) failing to apply the exception regarding judgments dividing employee benefits in connection with dissolution of marriage found in section 516.350 RSMo 2001; and (3) finding there were no payments on the record. We reverse and remand.
When reviewing the circuit court's granting of a motion to dismiss, we deem the facts that are properly pleaded to be true and draw all reasonable inferences that can be deduced from them fairly. Ricketts v. Ricketts, 113 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003). We review the petition to determine whether it invokes principles of substantive law and whether the facts alleged, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id.
On June 24, 1988, the trial court entered a Decree of Dissolution dissolving the parties' marriage. The judgment incorporated a Marital Settlement and Separation Agreement executed by the parties, which awarded to Wife 12.5% of any net profit realized by Husband upon the purchase and sale of certain stock options granted to Husband by his employer in a document dated February 5, 1986. Under the agreement, Husband had the sole and exclusive right to choose whether and when to exercise the stock options and would not be liable to Wife if he chose not to exercise the options, if his decision was made in good faith and was not designed to deprive Wife of her interest in the profits.
On December 7, 2001, Wife filed a Motion to Enforce Decree of Dissolution of Marriage seeking funds from the proceeds of the stock options. Wife alleged Husband "has exercised, purchased and sold all of the stock options granted to him pursuant to a document dated February 5, 1986, however he has failed to pay to [Wife] the full amount of the net profit realized from said transactions." Husband filed a Motion to Dismiss the Motion to Enforce Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. Husband and Wife stipulated the judgment had not been revived by Wife within the ten years following the June 24, 1988 judgment as required by 516.350 RSMo 1999. The parties also stipulated Husband had made three payments on the stock option portion of the judgment; specifically in February 1995 in the amount of $3,263.63, on January 7, 2000 in the amount of $20,151.06, and on July 19, 2001 in the amount of $2,782.75. Wife filed a Partial Satisfaction of Judgment on June 11, 2003 and on July 8, 2003.
The commissioner called the matter for hearing and entered her findings and recommendations. The commissioner found, among other things, the judgment was presumed paid on June 24, 1998 and Husband had fulfilled his obligations under the judgment pursuant to 516.350 RSMo 1999. The trial court adopted and approved as the court's judgment the findings and recommendations of the commissioner and granted Husband's Motion to Dismiss the Motion to Enforce Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. Wife filed a Motion for Rehearing which was denied. Wife appeals.
In her first point, Wife asserts the trial court erred in finding the judgment was presumed paid on June 24, 1998 pursuant to 516.350 RSMo 1999 and in failing to apply the exception contained in 516.350 RSMo. 2001. We agree.
The legislature amended section 516.350, effective August 28, 2001 which provides in pertinent part:
3. In any judgment, order, or decree dividing pension, retirement, life insurance, or other employee benefits in connection with a dissolution of marriage, legal separation or annulment, each periodic payment shall be presumed paid and satisfied after the expiration of ten years from the date that periodic payment is due, unless the judgment has been otherwise revived as set out in subsection 1 of this section. This subsection shall take effect as to all such judgments, orders, or decrees which have not been presumed paid pursuant to subsection 1 of this section as of August 28, 2001.
Prior to the 2001 amendment of the statute, Wife would not be entitled to her portion of any net proceeds of the stock option portion of the judgment. Starrett v. Starrett, 24 S.W.3d 211, 213 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000). The previous statute established a ten year limitation period measured from the date of the judgment unless the judgment was revived by personal service or payment duly recorded upon the record. Id. Here, the judgment was entered on June 24, 1988 and Wife concedes that she did not revive the judgment pursuant to 516.350 RSMo 1999. Thus, under the prior statute, Wife would be barred from enforcing the stock options portion of the judgment because the judgment would have been presumed paid June 24, 1998. The legislature, however, amended this statute in 2001, after the Starrett case, to provide that the ten-year limitations period would run, not from the date of the judgment, but from the time that a particular periodic payment was due. Under the amended statute, payment would be due when Husband realized a net profit on his stock options granted...
To continue reading
Request your trial