Glascock v. Glascock, WD

• Decision Date: 04 August 1981
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Citation: Glascock v. Glascock, 620 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. App. 1981)
• Parties: James V. GLASCOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Elizabeth Ann GLASCOCK, Respondent-Respondent. 32545.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 413

620 S.W.2d 413

James V. GLASCOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v.Elizabeth Ann GLASCOCK, Respondent-Respondent.

No. WD 32545.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 4, 1981.

Robert L. Roper, Jr., Columbia, for petitioner-appellant.

Larry M. Woods, Columbia, for respondent-respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and DIXON and NUGENT, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

This is the second appeal of this case.In the first appeal, this court dismissed the appeal because the decree did not dispose of all of the marital property.Glascock v. Glascock, 607 S.W.2d 834(Mo.App.1980).Pursuant to the suggestion of the court in the prior opinion that the parties consider the procedure suggested in New Style Homes, Inc. v. Fletcher, 600 S.W.2d 634(Mo.App.1980), to expedite the appeal where a case had been reversed solely because of a lack of finality of the judgment and acting upon that procedure, the appeal has been relodged in this court and was immediately resubmitted to the same panel which heard the argument in the first instance.

The points raised by the husband on this appeal, as in the prior appeal, relate to factual determinations of the trial court with respect to maintenance and division of property upon unresolved conflicts in the valuation evidence.An understanding of the disposition of the appeal requires a substantial and detailed statement of facts gleaned from the transcript and the exhibits filed.

Marital History

The parties were married in October of 1966, and at the time of trial in 1979, the husband was 36 years old, the wife, 35.At the time the parties met, the wife was doing typing and secretarial work in Columbia, Missouri, where the husband was attending school and working.

The wife continued her work for two years after the parties were married, until 1968 when their first child was born.During this time, the husband worked for a Mr. Crowe as a resident apartment manager in Columbia, and also received his law degree in 1968 and a master's degree in business administration in 1969.He then spent two years in the military; and upon his discharge, he returned to work for Crowe in 1971.

Crowe was and remained at the time of trial the owner of the largest apartment complex in Columbia, and from 1971 until 1978, the husband worked full time for Crowe.The husband provided accounting, legal, and management services to Crowe during this period.The husband's gross income from his employment with Crowe over the past three years had been $29,999.84 in 1976; $32,480.94 in 1977, and $33,000.24 in 1978.The husband also had some income from additional law practice totaling $3,750 in 1977 and $6,324 in 1978.The wife had not worked since the first child was born in 1968.(The husband's subsequent employment history, after the separation, will be developed later).

In 1972, the parties had their second child and in 1977they purchased a home which they restored and in which the wife was currently living.In 1975, the husband purchased, as a tenant in common with his brother, a 192-acre farm in Ralls County from his aunt and father.

In June of 1978, the husband separated from the wife, citing pressures from work, his wife, and the restoration of the home.A further cause of the separation was the husband's discovery of his physical attraction toward a female apartment manager at Crowe's Complex.The husband began dating her in July of 1978, and the relationship became intimate in September of 1978.

The husband's disharmony with his wife allegedly began in 1973 with constant complaints from her about the number of hours that he worked a week.The husband stated that the wife had a constant list of jobs for him to do when he wasn't working; that she was socially incompatible and needed constant reassurance; that she delegated the discipline of the children to him and that she preferred to spend the money he earned on silver, china, and furniture instead of placing it in investments as he wanted to do.The husband felt there was no chance of reconciliation, one of the factors being his intimacy with the apartment manager.

The wife's complaints against the husband centered around the number of hours he worked, the fact that he liked to sit around the house, watch sports, and drink beer on Saturdays, and that he often told her to leave him alone and to cease bothering him with her complaints.He was a compulsive worker by his own admission couldn't work a 40-hour week, and cannot change.

Misconduct History

Both the husband and wife testified about their own misconduct and that of the other.The majority of these incidents occurred after the separation.

The husband testified to two prior, isolated occasions upon which he had been unfaithful, once in 1969 for one night and once in 1977 for two nights.He admitted that he was currently having intercourse with the apartment manager.He also stated that he told the wife of these incidents after the separation.

The wife's allegations of misconduct centered around finances and the children.She stated that he induced her to sign a post-separation income tax refund check on the promise of receiving one-half the money, but that he had not paid her because she refused to allow him to visit the children.She also stated that he was not responsible when he did keep the children, citing a water-skiing accident, an alleged indiscretion by the husband's father with one of the daughters, and his leaving them alone at night when he worked.

The husband stated that the wife refused him visitation with the children after the separation except for six hours on Sundays; that he saw them less than 24-36 hours a month; that she alienated the children from him by calling him names in their presence and degrading his girlfriend and that she left the kids alone sometimes.

Both parties admitted exchanging obscene phone calls immediately after the separation.

Marital Property

Both parties gave detailed testimony as to the value of the marital property.The husband testified to a market value of $220,002.00 with a net value (subtracting all liens) of $91,651.The wife valued the marital property at a market value of $244,180.23 with an adjusted net value of $137,961.63.While there was a $7,200 difference of opinion as to the value of the household goods, the balance of the approximately $48,000 difference can be attributed to a disagreement between the parties as to the value of the 192-acre farm in Ralls County.The husband gave it a net value of - $7,250; the wife netted it at k $31,400.

The controversy as to the value of the farm stems from (1) the manner in which it was purchased; (2) any increases in value; and (3) the value of property surrounding it.

The husband testified that he and his brother bought the farm, which was next to their parents' farm, from their aunt and father, for $73,500 in 1975.This price was reached by averaging the value placed on the property by two appraisers and no outside purchasers were solicited.The husband believed the farm was worth $95,000 (his half being $47,500) at trial, but due to borrowing for farm equipment and losses from the farm operation over the 3-year period, he netted the farm value at a - $7,250.The husband admitted that the farm losses were from a tax standpoint, and that a combination of investment credits, write-offs and depreciation had enabled him to receive substantial tax refunds from the farm operation.The husband knew the farm to the immediate west had sold three or four months before trial for $1,000-$1,250 an acre; but it was 100% tillable as opposed to 90/192 tillable acres on his place.

The wife, on the other hand, stated that based on sales of the surrounding farmland within the last year the farm was worth $900 an acre; or her husband's half being $86,400.This opinion was based on what she had heard about comparative farm sales immediately next to or within four miles of the farm and also based on a discussion with a realtor in the area.The wife did admit that she wasn't as familiar with the value of the property as the husband; that she didn't know what percentage of it was tillable, nor had she any training in real estate matters.

The discrepancy in the value of the household goods stemmed primarily from the fact that the wife thought all the furniture values asserted by the husband should be discounted 25%.Financial Positions of the Parties

The Husband

Beginning in 1979, and coincidental with the marital disharmony, the husband entered a new working arrangement with Crowe.He stated that he went from a full-time employee to a part-time employee at $20 an hour.He and Crowe anticipated that he would work 50% of the time (or roughly 1,000 hours annually) at this rate.During the first three months of 1979, he had worked 388-389 hours and received, after taxes, $5,600 in wages from Crowe.The husband explained that this overage was due to an increased work-load during the first of the year which he did not anticipate would be indicative of the remainder of the year.His arrangement with Crowe was very flexible.

In addition to his $20 an hour salary, the husband was receiving rent free a $270 a month furnished apartment, the use of an automobile, and his country club dues.He was unsure how long these first two arrangements would last "probably for awhile."

The remainder of the husband's employment efforts were being channeled into his new property management business.At trial, he was serving as a manager for three different organizations, and based on a percentage of gross receipts, his combined monthly gross income from these operations totaled $770.He had the capabilities of accepting more management projects.

Based on an anticipated 80 hours a month for Crowe and the management receipts of $770 a month, the husband anticipated that his 1979 gross income would be between $29,000-$30,000.He felt as though he would be employed forever and that he had no expectations of a lessened income in...