Eakens v. Eakens (In re Eakens)
| Decision Date | 05 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | SD 37063 |
| Parties | IN RE the MARRIAGE OF: Robert Shawn EAKENS and Billie Jean Eakens Robert Shawn Eakens, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Billie Jean Eakens, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Attorney for Appellant – Fred H. Thornton, III, of Sikeston, MO.
Attorney for Respondent – Cameron Bunting Parker of Malden, MO.
Robert Shawn Eakens ("Husband") appeals from a judgment entered January 27, 2021, dissolving his marriage to Billie Jean Eakens ("Wife") and dividing marital property and debts between them. In three points relied on, Husband claims: (1) the trial court "erroneously applied the law" in classifying a Sterling Bank account that ended in 8395 as marital property because the account contained funds received by Husband and Husband's brother as beneficiaries of a life insurance policy on their father; (2) the trial court's valuation of the marital home at $175,000 and award of the home and related debt to Husband "creat[ed] an inequitable distribution of assets so heavy in favor of [Wife] as to amount to an abuse of discretion"; and (3) the trial court's judgment classifying the Sterling Bank account ending in 8395 as marital property, and valuing and awarding to Husband the marital home and related debt "was so heavily in favor of [Wife] as to amount to an abuse of discretion." We disagree, deny each point, and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Trial occurred on September 3, 2020. Viewed in accordance with our standard of review, the evidence at trial showed the following. Husband and Wife were married in October 1992. Husband subsequently filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on May 7, 2019, and Wife filed a counter-petition for dissolution of marriage in June 2019.
At the time of trial, Wife was 47 years old, was a high-school graduate, worked at Cornerstone Pharmacy as a pharmacy technician, and "earn[ed] approximately $37,000 a year." Wife did "not have any retirement" benefit through her current or past employment. The "majority of the years" Husband and Wife were married, Husband's "income was less than $50,000 a year," but had increased more recently and was over $70,000 in 2018. Husband's income increased to approximately $80,000 a year by the time of trial. After high school, Husband "did auto collision repair work," and continued doing that work when he began college in 2006. Before Husband began college, Wife "stayed at home with [the couple's] children," and then started working when Husband began college. On obtaining a degree in accounting, Husband began working for the federal government in 2010. Husband also has a "CPA license."
Wife has the "inherited cancer gene" "BRCA 1," and has had multiple surgeries beginning in 2015, and will have at least one additional surgery in the near future. Wife's current health insurance was through Husband's employment, but she could obtain health insurance through her employment at the cost of "around" $200 a month with a significantly higher deductible ($2,000 versus zero with Husband's insurance).
Wife had "moved out of the marital home" in January 2020 and was residing with her sister at the time of trial. Husband continued to reside in the marital home. A 2014 appraisal of the marital home for the purpose of refinancing the original mortgage was offered by Wife and admitted into evidence without objection, and opined the home had a value equal to $175,000. At the time of trial, the amount owed on the home "was a little over [$]73,000." Wife believed the marital home was "worth" $175,000 based on the appraisal, and requested that Husband "remain in the home and that [she] ... receive half the equity."1
Husband opened two accounts at Sterling Bank on April 20, 2018, and claimed that the account ending in 8395 was his nonmarital property. Wife was "not aware" of the two accounts at Sterling Bank "until [Husband] filed for divorce" and answered an interrogatory. Wife had no first-hand knowledge about those two accounts, but Husband "told" her one of the accounts at Sterling Bank "was used to house his father's life insurance when his father died." Wife "knew [Husband] had the life insurance money, but ... didn't know where he had put it." Wife's attorney also "went over some" of the records for Sterling Bank with Wife. Wife requested that the accounts at Sterling Bank be divided equally between Husband and her. On cross-examination, Wife acknowledged that "$36,000" of the amount in the Sterling Bank account ending in 8395 "was life insurance" because she "received a copy of the life insurance check made payable" to Husband "in discovery," and that she "knew that [Husband] inherited money from his father through a life insurance account." Wife declined to agree she knew a similar deposit was Husband's brother's life insurance check stating, 2 No life insurance check or other documentary evidence of life insurance was offered as evidence at trial, and the only witnesses at trial were Husband and Wife.
Based on bank records admitted into evidence at trial, Husband opened the Sterling Bank account ending in 8395 on April 20, 2018, with a deposit of $60 and a bank promotional deposit of $10; followed by a deposit of $37,650 on April 23, 2018; and followed by a deposit of $37,650 on May 7, 2018. Then, almost one year later and less than one month before Husband filed his petition for dissolution, Husband wrote a check on the account payable to his brother in the amount of $37,650. Husband testified that, at the time of trial, the account had a balance of "[$]600 or less" because Husband had used the account to purchase several "totaled vehicles" for he and his son to repair and resell. The portion of the bank records introduced by Wife and included in Husband's appendix to his brief do not show the source document for, or a description of, any of the deposits into the account other than the $10 bank promotional deposit – only the amount and date of each deposit are shown.3 Husband testified that he provided a copy of the life insurance check payable to him to Wife before trial, and, if necessary, could provide a copy of the life insurance check payable to Husband's brother. However, neither check was offered or admitted as evidence at trial.
Husband testified that, over the course of the marriage, he and Wife would "save up money" for larger expenses and purchases (e.g., flood insurance, property tax, the purchase of a vehicle), and Husband would place the money in a home safe that Husband currently keeps in his locked home office. Husband estimated that, at the time of trial, Husband had "around $400" in the safe – but on occasion the amounts have been significantly larger.
In its judgment, the trial court found: (1) Wife has been diagnosed with BRCA 1 Positive, and had major surgeries twice in 2015 and twice in 2016 and "is in need of an additional surgery"; (2) neither party alleged marital misconduct by the other; (3) Wife's valuation of the marital home (i.e., $175.000) to be credible, rejected Husband's valuation, and the debt on the marital home was $73,000; and (4) all bank accounts, including the Sterling Bank account ending in 8395, were marital property and determined the value of the account ending in 8395 to be $75,330.41, which was the account's beginning balance on April 6, 2019. The trial court: (1) awarded the marital home to Husband and allocated the marital debt on the marital home to Husband; (2) determined Wife's Exhibit H is a "true, correct, fair and equitable" division of Husband and Wife's marital assets and ordered Husband to pay Wife $106,501.53 to equalize the net value of the marital property and marital debt awarded and allocated to each; (3) set apart to Husband as Husband's nonmarital property an inheritance from his father's estate with a value of approximately $21,400; and (4) made the following credibility determinations:
"[T]he trial court's decision in a court-tried case is presumed correct, and the appellant has the burden of showing error." McAllister v. McAllister , 101 S.W.3d 287, 291 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). We must affirm the judgment in a dissolution case "if there is substantial evidence to support it, it is not against the weight of the evidence, and it neither erroneously declares nor erroneously applies the law." In re Marriage of Hillis , 313 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Mo. banc 2010). We "defer to the factfinder's determinations of credibility, viewing the evidence and permissible inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the decree, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences." Mehra v. Mehra , 819 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Mo. banc 1991). "A trial court is free to believe or disbelieve all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness." Short v. Short , 356 S.W.3d 235, 240 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). "When no express finding of fact is made on an issue, we consider the issue to have been resolved in accordance with the result." In re Marriage of Holden , 81 S.W.3d 217, 226–27 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002). While the classification of property as either "marital or non-marital is a question of law we review de novo [,]" Short , 356 S.W.3d at 243, we defer to the trial court's determination of the facts that underlie such a classification. See Glenn v. Glenn , 345 S.W.3d 320, 326 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) ().
Stroh v. Stroh , 454 S.W.3d 351, 354-55 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014).
To continue reading
Request your trial