Boling v. Boling, 48347

• Decision Date: 31 December 1984
• Docket Number: No. 48347,48347
• Citation: 683 S.W.2d 661
• Parties: Carolyn Sue BOLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randolph E. BOLING, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 661

683 S.W.2d 661

Carolyn Sue BOLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randolph E. BOLING, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 48347.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division One.

Dec. 31, 1984.

John J. Schlueter, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Lawrence J. Permuter, Clayton, for defendant-respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Wife appeals denial of maintenance, award of child support for three children, division of marital property and award of attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding. Wife contends that the denial of maintenance, the award of $1,000 per month for the support of three children and an award of $10,000 for attorney's fees in addition to a previous award of $5,000 was an abuse of discretion. Wife also contends that valuing the family corporation on a net worth or net asset basis under evidence offered by husband and not on a capitalization of earnings method based on evidence offered by wife was an abuse of discretion and resulted in an unfair division of marital property.

The decree dissolved a ten-year marriage. After filing the petition for dissolution wife moved to Arkansas with the three children, ages six, seven and nine, to be near her parents. She works as a teacher's aide in a public school for $418.56 per month. Before and during the marriage she worked in secretarial and office positions for like income. Husband's income is from the ownership and operation of Boling Concrete Construction Company, Inc. (Boling Concrete). The company was started and developed by the parties during the marriage. Husband's income and the value of the company were disputed issues throughout the trial and are interrelated.

The court granted no maintenance, awarded $1,000 per month support for the three children. The company was awarded to the husband and the wife got an undeveloped parcel of real estate valued at $45,000, personal property in her possession and a cash award of $2,500.

We find no error in the denial of maintenance, the award of child support or the determination and award of attorney's fees. Although the wife testified that she did not need periodic maintenance that view was conditioned upon her receipt of one-half of the value of the company as she valued it, $250,000. However, there was evidence to support a finding that she was able to support herself. Givens v. Givens, 599 S.W.2d 204, 206 (Mo.App.1980). The award of child support was supported by the evidence and we find no abuse of discretion. Oberkrom v. Oberkrom, 608 S.W.2d 449, 450 (Mo.App.1980). Likewise, the award of $10,000 as an additional fee for wife's attorney was within the trial court's broad discretion. Gray v. Gray, 649 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Mo.App.1983).

The wife offered evidence that the books of account of the company were intentionally not kept in good order. Husband's accountant agreed. Cash payments were not always reported as income. Husband spent considerable sums of company income to support a friend and her children without supporting entries in the company records. Company assets were titled in the names of others for non-business reasons. The parties signed a loan application in March 1980 which stated a monthly income of $6,666 and a value of $300,000 for the company. Husband testified that the value of the company on the application was less than its value at the time.

Wife's expert testified the company was worth $443,808. He arrived at this value by capitalizing the income averaged over the years, factored by a percentage related to the median rate paid on corporate bonds. He rejected the net asset approach because it does not measure market value. Husband valued the company at $42,285 claiming the gross value of the vehicles and equipment is $97,785 with debts against the...