Deffenbaugh v. Deffenbaugh

• Decision Date: 31 May 1994
• Docket Number: No. 63946,63946
• Citation: Deffenbaugh v. Deffenbaugh, 877 S.W.2d 186 (Mo. App. 1994)
• Parties: Cynthia F. DEFFENBAUGH, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Robert E. DEFFENBAUGH, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 186

877 S.W.2d 186

Cynthia F. DEFFENBAUGH, Petitioner-Respondent, v.Robert E. DEFFENBAUGH, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 63946.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division One.

May 31, 1994.

David G. Waltrip, Beach, Burcke, Helfers & Waltrip, P.C., Clayton, for respondent-appellant.

Allan F. Stewart, Braun, Stewart & Keefe, P.C., Clayton, for petitioner-respondent.

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Husband, Robert E. Deffenbaugh, appeals from the decree of dissolution of his marriage to wife, Cynthia F. Deffenbaugh.We affirm.

Husband and wife were married in June 1967 and separated in May 1990.Three children were born of the marriage: one in 1971, one in 1973, and one in 1978.Husband and wife entered into a separation agreement, resolving all issues of the dissolution, with the exception of whether 425 shares of Vance Sanders Exchange Fund (mutual fund) constituted marital or separate property.

The 425 shares of the mutual fund were purchased in 1976 with funds received from the sale of some shares of Baxter Laboratories stock (Baxter stock).Wife originally received the Baxter stock as a series of gifts from her parents, beginning in 1967 prior to the marriage and ending in 1973, for a total of 700 shares.Wife received all of the Baxter stock solely in her name and maintained it in her name throughout the marriage.

During the marriage, quarterly statements from the mutual fund were sent to the marital home and husband monitored the progress of the mutual fund.Husband and wife decided to reinvest the dividends in the mutual fund.At the time of dissolution, the original 425 shares of the mutual fund were valued at $103,848.75; the 210 shares acquired through dividend reinvestment were valued at $51,313.50.In the separation agreement, husband and wife divided the additional 210 shares of the mutual fund as marital property; but did not agree to the division of the initial 425 shares of the mutual fund as marital property.After a hearing, the trial court set aside the 425 shares of the mutual fund to wife as her separate property.

On appeal, husband challenges the trial court's determination that the 425 shares of the mutual fund constituted wife's separate property.Husband argues that his acumen and effort contributed to the increased value of the mutual fund and states But for the [Husband's] active role in acquiring the [mutual] Fund, in following the market, in deciding on the reinvestment options, and in consulting with the stock broker, the increase in value would never have been realized.This is all the more important when one realizes that the value of the [mutual] Fund increased in value from $25,000.00 to approximately $175,000.00 solely as a result of the [Husband's] labors.

Section 452.330.2, RSMo (Cum.Supp.1993) defines marital property, with certain enumerated exceptions, as "all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage."In Hoffmann v. Hoffmann, 676 S.W.2d 817, 825(Mo. banc 1984), the Supreme Court of Missouri adopted the source of funds approach and defined the statutory term "acquired" as an on-going process of making payment for acquired property.The source of the funds of the property determines the character of the property as either marital or separate.Id. at 824.

The increase in value of separate property can constitute marital property if marital assets or labor contributed to "acquiring" that increase, but then, only in proportion to the marital funds or effort devoted to its acquisition.Meservey v. Meservey, 841 S.W.2d 240, 245(Mo.App.W.D.1992).Entitlement to a share of the increased value based on marital effort expended...