Cureau v. Cureau

• Decision Date: 28 March 2017
• Docket Number: No. ED 104097,ED 104097
• Citation: 514 S.W.3d 685
• Parties: Shirley Jean CUREAU, Respondent, v. Alfred Joseph CUREAU, Sr., Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

514 S.W.3d 685

Shirley Jean CUREAU, Respondent,

v.Alfred Joseph CUREAU, Sr., Appellant.

No. ED 104097

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE .

Filed: March 28, 2017

FOR APPELLANT : Craig G. Kallen, Rachel S. Gray, 13321 North Outer Forty Road, Ste. 300, Town and country, MO 63017.

FOR RESPONDENT : Gary M. Siegel, Kimberly M. Metzger, 231 South Bemiston Avenue, Ste. 910, Clayton, MO 63105.

ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, Presiding Judge

Alfred Joseph Cureau, Sr. ("Husband") appeals from the trial court's Amended Judgment/Order and Decree of Dissolution ("First Amended Judgment") and Second Amended Judgment/Order and Decree of Dissolution ("Second Amended Judgment"). Husband claims the trial court erred in issues related to division of marital property and maintenance. We affirm as modified pursuant to Rule 84.14.¹

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Evidence Adduced at Trial

Shirley Jean Cureau ("Wife") filed her petition for dissolution of marriage on December 4, 2013. A bench trial was conducted on June 26, 2015 and August 18, 2015, revealing the following facts.

Husband and Wife were married on July 17, 1965. Four children were born of the marriage, however, no children remained unemancipated at the time of trial.

Husband is retired, legally blind, and living in an assisted-living facility. The trial court found Husband was receiving $1,871 per month from his Central States Pension and $1,464 per month from Social Security, totaling $3,335 in monthly income. Husband has monthly expenses of $3,074 per month. At trial, Husband testified his income exceeded his expenses by $300 per month, and he deposited any excess. The trial court found Wife was also retired, and was receiving $5,169 per month from her United States Department of Defense pension, $179 per month from Social Security, and $536 per month from her Emerson pension, totaling $5,884 in monthly income. The court found Wife's income met her reasonable needs.

Both parties were employed during the marriage and, while Husband was the higher-earning spouse early in the marriage, Wife became the higher-earning spouse later in the marriage, as a thirty-three year employee of the Department of Defense. After Wife retired, she became Husband's full-time caregiver due to his diminished eyesight. For eleven years between Wife's retirement and dissolution of the parties' marriage, Wife cooked for Husband and cleaned and maintained the marital home.

At the beginning of the parties' marriage, Husband and Wife maintained a joint bank account. However, when Wife began earning more income than Husband approximately thirty-five years prior to trial, Wife withdrew half of the funds in the parties' joint account and opened individual checking and savings accounts at a different bank. Since then, the parties maintained separate financial lives with expenses split between them, although the trial court found no evidence of a binding agreement requiring the parties to split expenses evenly or providing that what the parties earned during the marriage was to be kept separately. The parties slept in separate rooms later in the marriage, and were separated on or about February of 2014.

The parties had various financial disagreements about expenditures for maintaining and updating the marital home, including the repair or replacement of a garage door opener, lighting, a banister, new doors, carpeting, and furniture. The parties also disagreed about payment of bills related to burial plans. Husband refused to contribute to these expenses and Wife either paid for them herself in cash or by incurring credit card debt.

Both parties alleged the other committed some form of marital misconduct. Wife made allegations of an incident of Husband's sexual impropriety causing her to file her petition for dissolution. Husband maintained throughout the proceedings that he saved his money earned during the marriage, while Wife wasted marital assets on "many trips to Europe ... [and] out-of-town ... casinos and [she] visited local casinos on a weekly basis; and [she] expended substantial funds on clothing." The trial court found there was no credible evidence of significant gambling expense attributable to Wife, and ultimately, the trial court specifically concluded neither party engaged in marital misconduct.

Lastly, Husband sought an award of maintenance, asserting he was permanently disabled and suffered from degenerative health conditions that would require contributions from Wife to meet his future reasonable needs. Husband claimed, alternatively, he would not require maintenance and would be able to meet his future reasonable needs if the trial court awarded him the entirety of his Schwab investment accounts valued at $199,592. However, if the court chose to award Wife all or some of the Schwab accounts, Husband requested a nominal, modifiable maintenance award in the event his living costs increased or his income declined.

B. The Trial Court's Judgments

At the conclusion of the parties' trial on August 18, 2015, the trial court authorized the parties to submit their proposed judgments, which would be due on or about September 17. However, on September 9, prior to the submission of either party's proposed judgments, the trial court entered a Judgment/Order and Decree of Dissolution ("Original Judgment"), which (1) divided the marital property, (2) awarded Wife, as an additional share of marital property, an equalization payment of $124,033 secured by a lien on Husband's Schwab account identified as "the Bene Plan," and (3) found that neither party was entitled to maintenance.

On October 2, Husband filed a motion to set aside the Original Judgment arguing he had not been afforded the opportunity to submit a proposed judgment to the trial court, and additionally alleging he was unaware of whether Wife had filed a proposed judgment either. On October 5, the trial court granted Husband's motion setting aside the Original Judgment and gave the parties until October 21 to file their proposed judgments.

On November 2, after both parties submitted proposed judgments, the trial court entered its First Amended Judgment, which (1) divided the marital property, (2) reduced the equalization payment awarded to Wife from $124,033 to $115,000, payable according to the same terms as in the Original Judgment, and (3) again denied Husband's request for maintenance, concluding Husband and Wife could both support themselves with their current incomes.

On December 6, Husband filed an amended verified motion for new trial, or alternatively, a motion to re-open judgment.² Husband claimed he had been informed following trial that the income from his pension may be subject to decrease. Husband submitted a copy of a notice stating a calculation had been performed regarding his pension and the calculation indicated Husband's pension would become insolvent without a reduction in pension benefits. The proposed reduction was to become effective on July 1, 2016. In the motion for new trial or to re-open judgment, Husband asserted the new information "should be considered by the Court in its decision as to the distribution of marital assets and the award of maintenance."

Finally, on February 1, 2016, the trial court entered its one-page Second Amended Judgment awarding Husband "$1 per year in contractual modifiable maintenance" ("Wife's maintenance obligation"). Husband appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

In Husband's first point on appeal, he asserts the trial court misapplied the law and abused its discretion by ordering him to pay Wife an equalization payment of $115,000 in its First Amended Judgment in conjunction with awarding him nominal, modifiable maintenance in its Second Amended Judgment. In his second point on appeal, Husband argues the trial court erred in ordering Wife to pay Husband one dollar per year in contractual , modifiable maintenance pursuant to its Second Amended Judgment, because Wife's maintenance obligation should have been designated as decretal , modifiable maintenance.

A. Standard of Review

As with any court-tried case, our review of a dissolution of marriage action is guided by the standards set forth in Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Alabach v. Alabach , 478 S.W.3d 511, 513 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Accordingly, the dissolution judgment will be affirmed unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. Id. Pursuant to our standard of review, we view all evidence and permissible inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment, and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. Coleman v. Coleman , 318 S.W.3d 715, 719 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). Moreover, where the trial court did not make a specific finding of fact, we consider that fact found in accordance with the result reached. Travis v. Travis , 163 S.W.3d 43, 47 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) ; Liberty v. Liberty , 826 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) ; see also Rule 73.01(c).

The trial court is vested with broad discretion in dividing marital property and awarding maintenance. Coleman , 318 S.W.3d at 719 ; Woodard v. Woodard , 201 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). "The trial court abuses its discretion only when its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock one's sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration." Coleman , 318 S.W.3d at 720 (quotations omitted). If reasonable minds could differ about the propriety of the trial court's decision, there is no abuse of discretion. French v. French , 365 S.W.3d 285, 291 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012).

An appellate court will affirm the trial court's division of marital property unless it is so unduly weighted in favor of one party so as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Woodard , 201 S.W.3d at 561. Further, we presume the division of property is correct, and the party challenging the property division...