Chambers v. Chambers, 66647
Decision Date | 21 November 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 66647,66647 |
Citation | 910 S.W.2d 780 |
Parties | Joanne M. CHAMBERS, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Wayne J. CHAMBERS, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Elaine A. Marten, John A. Walsh, Boudoures, Schneider & Walsh, St. Louis, for appellant.
Carl F. Kohnen, Florissant, Alan Agathen, Boisaubin & Agathen, St. Louis, for respondent.
Appellant/cross-respondent, Wayne J. Chambers ("husband"), appeals from the judgment entered by the St. Louis County Circuit Court dissolving his marriage to respondent/cross-appellant, Joanne M. Chambers ("wife"). Wife also appeals aspects of the judgment. We affirm as modified.
Husband and wife were married June 22, 1968. Four children were born of the marriage; two were emancipated at the time of the November 23, 1993, dissolution hearing. Husband and wife mutually agreed that husband would get primary physical custody of the two unemancipated children, Thomas and Matthew, who were then fifteen and nineteen years old. Husband did not expect any child support from wife.
Wife, fifty-one years old at the time of the hearing, earned a degree in elementary education and a Missouri lifetime teaching certificate in 1965. She worked full-time as a teacher for three years, until her marriage to husband in 1968. For the next twenty-five years, wife did not work at any full-time jobs outside the home, but did work at occasional part-time jobs: a few months of substitute teaching in the 1970's while husband was out of work, a year and a half of preschool teaching in the early 1980's (ten hours per week), and preschool teaching during 1992 and 1993 (twenty hours per week).
At the time of the dissolution hearing, wife was working as a substitute teacher, averaging two days of work a week and earning fifty-five dollars per day ($110 per week). Wife's monthly net income from her teaching position, amortized over twelve months, was $327.47. Wife was also a licensed real estate agent, listed as a sales associate with Coldwell Banker since September of 1993; however, she had not completed all her real estate classes and had not sold or shown any houses as of the date of the hearing. Wife had also been an Amway distributor for the preceding four to five years, but had never earned a profit from this work.
Wife had been suffering from hearing loss and tinnitus in her right ear for about five years at the time of the hearing. She was undergoing treatment for this condition, and wore a hearing aid. When asked whether this condition affected her work as a substitute teacher, wife testified it was "somewhat limiting" in that she could not hear or understand some of the children or understand messages over the intercom. However, there was no evidence this hearing problem prevented wife from seeking and obtaining employment.
Wife attempted to find full-time teaching positions in several school districts, but was told there were no openings at the elementary level and was advised not to bother sending in applications. Wife testified her age, and the fact that her teaching certificate had been obtained twenty-eight years ago, constituted obstacles to her obtaining a teaching position. She also claimed the school district in which she was working as a substitute teacher frowned upon her working as a substitute in other school districts. Wife applied for jobs such as cashier, salesperson, or clerk at various department and grocery stores, restaurants, and offices, but met with no success.
Wife set her monthly expenses at $1,700. Wife asked for maintenance in the amount of $1,372, the difference between her expenses and her current monthly income. Wife also asked that the marital home, which she valued at $105,200, be sold and the proceeds distributed equally between herself and husband; as an alternative, wife asked that husband buy her half-share of the home. Wife further requested that a 120-acre plot of undeveloped land in Perry County, which she and husband owned jointly, be divided equally or sold and the proceeds divided equally. Wife valued this land at $325 per acre, or $39,000. Finally, wife asked that she be awarded attorney's fees.
Husband worked for McDonnell Douglas at the time of the hearing. Husband claimed in his statement of income that he grossed $839 per week, for a weekly net income of $567; however, he admitted on cross-examination that, in 1993, he had earned a gross weekly income of $1,062, for a net weekly income of $801.
Husband tallied his monthly expenses at $3,677, and claimed he would not be able to meet these expenses if he were required to pay any maintenance to wife. However, part of these expenses were for the two older, emancipated sons, who were still living at home. Further, husband claimed over $500 per month as "mortgage payments," even though there was no outstanding mortgage on the marital home. With respect to this claimed expense, husband testified to the following:
Q. You'll see an expense there for a house payment. You do not presently have a house payment; do you?
A. No.
Q. But you anticipate that in the resolution of this dissolution of marriage, you're going to have to take out a loan on the house in order to pay some money to Mrs. Chambers?
A. That's correct.
Husband also claimed monthly expenses of $688 for Thomas' and Matthew's tuition and books at a private school which offered special classes for students with learning disabilities. Both Matthew, who was to graduate that spring, and Thomas, who was a freshman at that time, attended this school due to deficiencies in their reading and writing skills.
Husband objected to selling the marital home, testifying it was in Thomas' and Matthew's best interests to continue to reside there. Husband valued the marital home at $80,000, and offered to pay wife for her half interest. Husband proposed to do this by means of a direct payment of $20,000 and a transfer of a larger part of his McDonnell Douglas savings plan, equal to $60,000. Husband also wanted to keep the Perry County property, on the ground he and wife had promised to leave the property to the children. Husband valued the Perry County property at $100 per acre, or $12,000. Finally, husband proposed that he and wife contribute $10,000 each to a trust fund, to pay for Thomas' and Matthew's future educational expenses; any remainder would be distributed equally back to husband and wife.
The trial court issued a decree of dissolution on February 4, 1994. No child support was ordered. The court found wife "to be in moderately poor health" and lacking adequate means to support herself, found husband of adequate means to provide support to wife, and ordered husband to pay wife maintenance of $600 per month. The court then divided the marital property in the following manner:
A. Marital Property Awarded to Wife 1) 1984 Crown Victoria $2,500 2) 1/2 household goods and furniture 1,000 3) Amway assets and inventory 500 4) 1/2 McDonnell Douglas employee retirement income plan 8,500 5) 1/2 McDonnell Douglas employee retirement income plan "Hourly 200 East" 6) 1/2 marital 62.5% of Pattern Makers pension trust fund 5,625 7) 28.5% interest in marital residence 28,500 8) Payment to educational trust (5,000) 9) 75% portion of McDonnell Douglas employee savings plan by QDRO 60,000 10) 1/2 proceeds, Perry County property 15,000 -------- $116,825 -------- B. Marital Property Awarded to Husband 1) 1989 Ford van subject to 100% lien $0 2) UPS checking account 100 3) St. Louis Postal Employees Credit Union account 150 4) Pistol 100 5) 1/2 household goods and furniture 1,000 6) Tools and tool box 125 7) 1/2 McDonnell Douglas employee retirement income plan 8,500 8) 1/2 McDonnell Douglas employee retirement income plan "Hourly 200 East" 9) 1/2 marital 62.5% of Pattern Makers pension trust fund 5,625 10) 71.5% interest in marital residence 71,500 11) 25% portion of McDonnell Douglas employee savings plan 20,000 12) Payment to educational trust (5,000) 13) 1/2 proceeds, Perry County property 15,000 -------- $117,300 --------
As the above division shows, the court valued the marital residence at $100,000 and ordered it sold, with twenty-eight and a half percent of the proceeds distributed to wife and seventy-one and a half percent distributed to husband. The court valued the Perry County property at $30,000 and ordered it sold as well, with half the proceeds distributed to each spouse. The court additionally ordered each spouse to pay $5,000 from their half share of the proceeds from the sale of the Perry County property into an educational trust. The money in this trust was to be applied towards the costs of Thomas' and Matthew's secondary education, with any residual unused amount distributed back equally to husband and wife. Finally...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Olofson v. Olofson
...is impossible to divide property in kind, the court may order a monetary award to justly divide marital property. Chambers v. Chambers , 910 S.W.2d 780, 785 (Mo. App. 1995) ; see also Dickerson v. Dickerson , 580 S.W.3d 98, 107 (Mo. App. 2019) (recognizing a monetary award is appropriate wh......
-
Kellner v. Kellner
...First, the property cannot be divided in kind, and second, a sale would be in the best interest of the parties. Chambers v. Chambers, 910 S.W.2d 780 (Mo.App.1995); Parker v. Parker, 744 S.W.2d 469 (Mo.App.1987); Swinford v. Swinford, 682 S.W.2d 189 (Mo.App.1984). See, also, 27B C.J.S. Divor......
-
In re the Marriage Of: Stacey P. Cornella And Frank A. Cornella.Stacey P. Cornella
...such contribution.” Hartzell v. Hartzell, 976 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Mo.App.1998) (maintenance modification) (citing Chambers v. Chambers, 910 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Mo.App.1995) (maintenance award)). Here, the trial court relied not only on the agreement to support its finding that Wife acted in good ......
-
Judy v. Judy, WD
...and it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion if the "maintenance award falls short of [her] monthly expenses." Chambers v. Chambers, 910 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Mo.App.1995); see also In re Marriage of Colley, 984 S.W.2d 163, at 172-73 Even if the trial court's finding, incorporating the misca......