Falvey v. Falvey, 52006

Decision Date07 April 1987
Docket NumberNo. 52006,52006
Citation727 S.W.2d 459
PartiesFrances Helen FALVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neil Joseph FALVEY, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Ray A. Gerritzen, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Neil Joseph Falvey, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.

PUDLOWSKI, Presiding Judge.

Wife appeals from a judgment in the trial court awarding her marital property and $2,000 in attorney's fees. She appeals, contending that the court erred in calculating each party's share of the marital property, in failing to re-open the case for new evidence, in finding no value in the marital property of the corporation awarded husband, and in not awarding maintenance. We affirm.

Wife is 47 and works as a secretary earning $16,200 per year. Husband is a 55 year old self employed computer consultant. His income varies. He also owns a moderate amount of income producing property. The parties married in 1983. After living for a short while in wife's house, they bought a new house. Husband contributed $38,000 of his separate property to the purchase which was made in both names. The court also found that husband had expended $3,000 of his separate property to the improvement of the previous house, which is wife's separate property.

In February or March 1985, the couple separated. The court granted a dissolution decree on May 30, 1986. The court set aside to each party his or her separate property. Wife's significant separate property included the house in which the couple had briefly lived during 1983, her furnishings, rings and other liquid and real estate assets with a value of over $3,000. Husband's separate property included accounts, insurance, stock, notes and retirement benefits, all worth $66,000, two Florida condominiums, and his furnishings. The court awarded the following marital property as hers; a television set, a 1984 Cougar automobile (no value assigned to either) and her pension fund from Monsanto ("having little if any present value)." Husband received as marital property his business known as Precision Data Systems (having little cash value), office and household furniture, and the house purchased by the couple having equity of $41,000. The court then ordered husband to pay wife $5,000 in order to make a just division of the marital real property and $2,000 in attorney's fee. He awarded no maintenance to either party.

Wife's first point is two pronged. In her brief, she states that at the motion for a new trial, the court orally indicated that he would apply Hoffmann v. Hoffmann, 676 S.W.2d 817 (Mo. banc 1984) in dividing the marital property. Wife contends that Hoffmann only established the "source of funds" rule for determining whether the property in question would be marital or separate. As Hoffmann did not abolish the "presumptions of gift" rule and as the principle of law is not to be applied to distribute marital property, wife contends that the de facto split of the house's equity $36,000 to $5,000 is in error.

The wife's contention is, for numerous reasons, devoid of merit. First, wife preserved nothing for review for she does not cite us to any part of the record to support this alleged misinterpretation of Hoffmann. Further, our extensive review of the record reveals only the following exchange.

MR. ROBERTSON: The only thing other I would have to add, Your Honor, for the record, is that--just direct your attention to the Hoffman [sic] case. I can give you the cite if you like; which states basically, as you know--

THE COURT: Source of source and source of funds and formulas, and two cases since then.

MR. ROBERTSON: And I believe there's been a reduction of a debt jointly or--I am sorry, singly held property, where there's been a reduction of the debt, it is converted to marital property, I believe.

THE COURT: That is correct.

All right, you may step down.

MR. GERRITZEN: (Attorney for wife) Also, I can give you a whole list of cases where property put in joint names is deemed to be a gift unless proven otherwise; and burden of proof is on the person claiming the property, other than as a gift.

Wife's first point is not properly preserved.

Nonetheless, we have reviewed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re the Marriage of Mary P. Petersen
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 25, 2000
    ...property when awarding the property to Husband. See Abrams v. Abrams, 787 S.W.2d 902, 903-04 (Mo.App. 1990), and Falvey v. Falvey, 727 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Mo.App. 1987). Even though her separate property may have been transmuted into marital property, such does not "preclude the trial court fr......
  • McDonough v. McDonough, 54099
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1988
    ...by respondent's separate funds. We can find no abuse of discretion in its distribution of the couple's marital property. Falvey v. Falvey, 727 S.W.2d 459 (Mo.App.1987). Appellant argues that because respondent continued to earn $7,500.00 in salary per month from the corporation and at the t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT