Geldmeier v. Geldmeier, 46808

Decision Date28 February 1984
Docket NumberNo. 46808,46808
Citation669 S.W.2d 33
PartiesSharon Ann GELDMEIER, Respondent, v. Gary Frederick GELDMEIER, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Mary Ann Weems, Clayton, for appellant.

Lisa A. Kircher, Clayton, for respondent.

REINHARD, Judge.

Dissolution case. On appeal, husband challenges the division of marital property, the award of maintenance and the amount of child support.

Husband and wife married in 1963. Their two children, Mark and Kelly, were born in 1964 and 1968, respectively. Husband, a bottler at Anheuser-Busch for the past fifteen years, was the principal breadwinner. His gross income during 1981 was $36,465.00, which included substantial overtime. Husband had worked overtime in each of the past ten years, and testified that he regularly refused overtime work offered to him.

Wife was primarily a homemaker, although she had worked as a secretary at one point during the marriage. Wife completed her master's degree in clinical psychology shortly before the parties' dissolution. Although she was seeking employment in both her chosen profession and other fields, her job search had not proven fruitful at the time of trial.

In its order, the court divided the marital property and awarded wife custody of the two children and support of $80.00 per week, per child. Maintenance was set at $100.00 per month.

On appeal, husband contends that the court "divided the marital property and debts in such a disproportionate manner that the effect of the division of the property was to award property to wife while awarding more debts than property to the husband."

The disposition of marital property is governed by § 452.330 RSMo.1982:

The court shall set aside to each spouse his property and shall divide the marital property in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors....

The court possesses broad discretion in the division of marital property. Its division must be just and equitable, but an equitable division need not be equal. Walker v. Walker, 631 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Mo.App.1982). Moreover, in reviewing this matter, we are bound to sustain the trial court's order unless there is no substantial evidence to support it or it is against the weight of the evidence. Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 627 S.W.2d 117, 120 (Mo.App.1982).

Clearly, the court in its distribution of marital property was aware of the statutory framework within which it was required to act. The marital home, valued at approximately $40,000.00, was the major asset and was encumbered by two separate notes, secured by deeds of trust, for $16,400.00 and $15,000.00. ($16,400.00 was the amount still owed on the parties original home mortgage; the latter $15,000 was borrowed to pay marital debts). The court awarded the marital home to wife, who had custody of the minor children. In turn, the court ordered:

petitioner [wife] [to] execute a note and deed of trust in favor of Respondent [husband] in the amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred ($7500.00) Dollars, with no interest, payable on the earliest happening of one of the following events: (1) The emancipation of the minor child, Kelly Ann Geldmeier. (2) The marriage of petitioner. (3) The sale of the house by petitioner.

In its decree the court recognized that this note represented husband's interest in the marital home.

As to the other marital property, the court awarded wife the 1973 Cutlass automobile, valued at $800.00; household furniture worth $500.00 and personal property in her possession. Husband received, in addition to his interest in the marital home, a 1974 Chevelle automobile, valued at $450.00; a $500.00 boat; his interest in the Anheuser-Busch pension plan, worth approximately $2,000.00 and including insurance plans connected with the plan; his $1100.00 interest in a life insurance policy, with directions that the children be named as beneficiaries until their emancipation; $2,500.00 from the recent sale of stock, and the remaining value of his Anheuser-Busch stock fund, worth approximately $3,000.00.

As to the parties' outstanding debts, the court ordered wife to pay the debt to her parents; husband to pay the debt to his parents. Wife was ordered to pay the first note for $16,400.00, secured by a deed of trust, and husband the second note of $15,000.00. By implication, husband is responsible for signature and student loans totalling approximately $6,500.00, for which payments are withheld from his weekly salary. Husband was also ordered to discharge all other debts, which amounted to $600.00, and hold wife harmless.

According to husband, the net result of the property division was that he received no assets, since the debts he was ordered to pay exceeded the property he r...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Costley v. Costley
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 11, 1986
    ...The fact the just division of marital property places a heavy obligation upon the husband does not misapply the law. Geldmeier v. Geldmeier, 669 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.App.1984); In Re Marriage of Kueber, 599 S.W.2d 259 (Mo.App.1980). The husband's first point is The husband's second point is the tr......
  • Mondelli v. Howard
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 1989
    ...able to assume and repay the debt. In re Marriage of Vanderbeek, 177 Cal.App.3d 224, 222 Cal.Rptr. 832, 839 (1986); Geldmeier v. Geldmeier, 669 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Mo.Ct.App.1984). Mr. Howard urges this Court to adopt a rule requiring that marital debts be distributed in the same proportion as t......
  • Mahaffey v. Mahaffey
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 1989
    ...v. Shink, 140 A.D.2d 506, 528 N.Y.S.2d 847, 849 (1988); and (3) which party is better able to assume the debt. Geldmeier v. Geldmeier, 669 S.W.2d 33, 35 Mr. Mahaffey was not the only member of the family involved in the farming venture, even though he was responsible for the day-to-day mana......
  • Thomas v Thomas, 99-00824
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 2000
    ...v. Shink, 140 A.D.2d 506, 528 N.Y.S.2d 847, 849 (1988); and (3) which party is better able to assume the debt. Geldmeier v. Geldmeier, 669 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). Mahaffey, 775 S.W.2d at Wife's uncontroverted testimony at trial indicated that Husband's use of drugs and alcohol co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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