Calia v. Calia
| Decision Date | 27 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 624 S.W.2d 870 |
| Parties | Linda L. CALIA, Respondent, v. Andrew B. CALIA, Appellant. 32194. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Philip H. Schwarz, Kansas City, for appellant.
Edward J. Houlehan, Kansas City, for respondent.
Before KENNEDY, P. J., and WASSERSTROM and SHANGLER, JJ.
Linda L. and Andrew B. Calia were married June 16, 1961. Four sons were born to their union. A decree dated September 12, 1980, dissolved the marriage, divided the marital property, awarded custody of the children to Linda, and ordered Andrew to pay $200 per month per child for support as well as $100 per month for maintenance.
Andrew appeals and raises two points. First, the trial court erred in ordering him to pay Linda $7,150 in cash as part of the division of marital property. Second, the court abused its discretion in granting Linda the right to claim two children as dependents for tax purposes. We affirm on the first point and modify and affirm on the second.
The court divided the marital property as follows:
Property Allocated to Linda Calia Net Value
--------------------------------------- ------------
Residence $ 35,000.00
Household goods 3,000.00
1979 Thunderbird automobile .00
Retirement fund 1,240.00
Checking account, Peoples Bank 10.00
Personal effects
Cash judgment against Andrew 7,150.00
------------
$ 46,400.00
Less balance due on charge accounts 545.42
------------
Net share of marital property (61%) $ 45,854.58
Property Allocated to Andrew Calia Net Value
------------------------------------------ -----------
Gas station lease $ 20,000.00
Business bank account, Kaw Valley Bank 8,700.00
Life insurance, cash value 3,500.00
Ford truck and camper 2,500.00
Wedding rings 2,500.00
Savings account, Kaw Valley Bank
(silver proceeds) 1,175.00
Savings account, Kaw Valley Bank 1,138.00
Personal effects -----------
$ 39,513.00
Less
Balance due on charge accounts $ 1,556.78
Attorney fees for Linda 2,000.00
Cash payment to Linda 7,150.00
----------
Total Deductions $10,706.78 10,706.78
-----------
Net share of marital property (39%) $ 28,806.22
Andrew attacks the order that he pay Linda $7,150 because the court did not specify the source of or reason for the transfer. Several principles govern our review. First, the trial court has broad discretion in dividing marital property. In re Marriage of Brewer, 592 S.W.2d 529, 532 (Mo.App.1979). Second, the division must be just, but it need not be equal. Hilger v. Hilger, 570 S.W.2d 736, 740 (Mo.App.1978). Third, in dividing the marital property, the trial court is unfettered by "rigid methods or mechanics." Id. Finally, the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error in the judgment. In re Marriage of Brewer, supra at 532.
Applying these standards, we find the trial court did not err in dividing the marital property. The court originally set aside the Kaw Valley account containing $1,138 to Linda and ordered Andrew to pay her $6,000. Upon learning that Andrew had emptied the joint account shortly before Linda filed for dissolution, the court modified its decision by awarding the depleted account to Andrew and ordering him to pay Linda an additional $1,150. If one spouse secretes or squanders marital property in anticipation of divorce, the court may order reimbursement. Daniels v. Daniels, 557 S.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Mo.App.1977); In re Marriage of Faulkner, 582 S.W.2d 292, 295-96 (Mo.App.1979). The cash award of $1,150 was unquestionably proper.
The court labeled the $6,000 transfer "a further division of the marital property" but did not pinpoint its source. Andrew argues this ambiguity renders the award improper. But see Daniels v. Daniels, 557 S.W.2d at 704. Neither party expressly requested findings of fact nor conclusions of law; therefore, "all fact issues are deemed to accord with the result." Kaczmarczyk v. Kaczmarczyk, 593 S.W.2d 252, 253 (Mo.App.1980); Rule 73.01(a) (2). Moreover, the evidence showed that the business checking account contained marital cash sufficient to fund the transfer.
A court may order cash payments to effect a just division of marital property. Claunch v. Claunch, 525 S.W.2d 788 (Mo.App.1975). This device is employed when it is impossible or imprudent to divide a piece of property in kind. Snider v. Snider, 570 S.W.2d 770 (Mo.App.1978). It is also permissible to order a cash transfer without linking it to any particular asset. See Norman v. Norman, 604 S.W.2d 680, 685 (Mo.App.1980).
In achieving a just division of marital property, the court is to consider all relevant factors, including the "economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective." § 452.330.1(3), RSMo 1978. In ordering a cash transfer to Linda, the trial court could have considered the following factors under the rubric "economic circumstances".
First, Linda's share of marital property would have been devoid of liquid assets absent the $7,150 award, yet the court ordered Linda to assume substantial obligations on the house and Thunderbird. Upon dissolution, Linda was earning a monthly net income of $630 and would receive monthly maintenance of $100. Debt service on the house and car requires $450 per month. Thus, only $280 would remain to meet expenses not covered by child support. The court could reasonably have concluded that a cash award would cushion the blow of unanticipated expenses and would enable Linda to adapt to post-dissolution budgetary constraints.
A second economic circumstance which the court could have considered was the allocation of income-producing property. Arp v. Arp, 572 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo.App.1978). Andrew received the gas station lease, which is the only asset capable of generating a lucrative return. Linda's equity in the house, though substantial, does not provide a steady income and is not readily accessible since she must maintain a home for the children. A cash transfer is one method by which the trial court might remedy the disparity.
Andrew has failed to demonstrate that the court erred in awarding Linda $7,150 as a further division of marital property. That portion of the decree is affirmed.
In his second point, Andrew contends the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Linda the right to claim two of the children as tax exemptions. The decree allocates exemptions for two named sons to each parent and permits the holder of the exemption to claim it on any tax return, including federal, state or city. Although the arguments focus exclusively on the validity of the decree vis-a-vis the Internal Revenue Code, Missouri law is also implicated since it simply adopts the federal guidelines on dependents. Sec. 143.161, RSMo 1978.
A Missouri court has jurisdiction to allocate tax exemptions between parents, Niederkorn v. Niederkorn, 616 S.W.2d 529, 533 (Mo.App.1981); however, this power must be exercised in accord with the Internal Revenue Code. In re Marriage of Neal, 92 Cal.App.3d 834, 848, 155 Cal.Rptr. 157, 165 (1979). Under the Code, a noncustodial parent may claim the child as a dependency exemption by satisfying either of two special rules. 33 Am.Jur.2d, Federal Taxation, P 1153 (1980).
Under 26 U.S.C.A., § 152(e)(2)(A) (West Supp. 1981), a noncustodial parent may claim the exemption if two conditions are met. First, a court decree or agreement between the parties must grant the exemption to the noncustodial parent....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mistler v. Mistler
...a specific accounting of certain expenditures, the husband did not "squander" marital assets as that word is used in Calia v. Calia, 624 S.W.2d 870, 872 (Mo.App.1981) (husband emptied joint account shortly before wife filed for dissolution); In re Marriage of Faulkner, 582 S.W.2d 292, 295-9......
-
Costley v. Costley
..."Third, in dividing the marital property, the trial court is unfettered by 'rigid methods or mechanics.' " Calia v. Calia, 624 S.W.2d 870, 872 (Mo.App.1981). "[T]he power given the trial court by § 452.330 (par. 1) 'to divide the marital property' includes the powers necessary to render eff......
-
Hoffmann v. Hoffmann
...in anticipation of divorce. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to order reimbursement of funds to the wife. Calia v. Calia, 624 S.W.2d 870, 872 (Mo.App.1981). We defer to the trial court's findings in this The wife's final point is that the trial court erred in failing to award her the ......
-
Hubbs v. Hubbs
...Redevelopment Corp., 518 S.W.2d 11, 16 (Mo.1974); Massman Const. Co. v. Kansas City, 487 S.W.2d 470, 478 (Mo.1972); Calia v. Calia, 624 S.W.2d 870, 872 (Mo.App.1981); Naeger v. Naeger, 542 S.W.2d 344, 346 (Mo.App.1976); Weston v. Great Central Ins. Co., 514 S.W.2d 17, 21 (Mo.App.1974); Stat......
-
§ 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
...nothing if the business pays no dividends. See Johnson v. Johnson, 13 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1034 (Mont. 1986).[492] See Calia v. Calia, 624 S.W.2d 870 (Mo. App. 1981).[493] Scott v. Scott, 645 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. App. 1982).[494] Missouri: Manor v. Manor, 706 S.W.2d 603 (Mo. App. 1986). Texas: Wre......