Golleher v. Golleher, 49039
| Decision Date | 03 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 49039,49039 |
| Parties | Fred D. GOLLEHER, Appellant, v. Nancy Jane GOLLEHER, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ronald L. Rothman, Clayton, for appellant.
Ellsworth Cundiff, St. Charles, for respondent.
Appellant-husband appeals from a decree of dissolution of his marriage to respondent-wife. He alleges that the trial court erred: (1) in failing to distribute the cemetery lots as marital property; (2) in failing to apportion all of the marital debts; (3) in computing the value of his pension benefits; (4) in distributing an uncollected judgment as marital property; and (5) in awarding wife her attorney's fees. We affirm.
At the time of the dissolution there were two minor children born of the marriage. Primary custody and child support were awarded to wife. Neither those awards nor the dissolution itself are challenged on appeal.
The decree divided the assets as follows:
To Husband: Valuation
--------------------------------------- ------------
1977 Chrysler, subject to a debt of
$1,300 $ 1,100 net
1977 Ford Pickup 2,500
1974 Truck Camper, subject to a debt of
$1,400 1,600 net
Federal Tax return 1,366
State Tax return 93
Pension Plan benefits 2,571
Lot-Cuba, Mo. 900
Miscellaneous household goods 5,320
Judgment 11,000
Lien against residence, payable when
sold or youngest child reached 18
years, whichever comes first 5,000
-------
$31,450
To Wife: Valuation
------------------------------------- ------------
1977 Mercury $ 2,400
Miscellaneous household goods 2,375
Residence, fair market value $44,000
subject to mortgage of $22,100 plus
$5,000 lien 16,900 net
-------
$21,675
Husband first contends that the court erred in failing to distribute the cemetery lots. Section 452.330, RSMo (1978) provides in pertinent part that "the court shall set apart to each spouse his property and shall divide the marital property in such proportions as the court deems just...." It is axiomatic that, in order to determine whether a specific item of property is "marital" and then to divide it equitably, there must be sufficient evidence in the record regarding that property. Here, the only evidence consisted of the listing of the cemetery lots as a loan of $2,630.00 in husband's Financial Statement, 1 plus three cursory references to the lots in the testimony at trial, each of which related to which party was making the payments on the loan for the lots. The record is devoid of facts about the lots from which to ascertain their ownership, their value, or their classification as either marital or separate property.
The failure to distribute only some property does not affect the decree's validity or finality for purposes of our review. In re Marriage of Hopkins v. Hopkins, 664 S.W.2d 273, 274 (Mo.App.1984). The remedy is a suit in equity in the court below to determine the ownership of the omitted property. Yoder by Larsen v. Horton, 678 S.W.2d 901, 904 (Mo.App.1984). Husband's first point is denied.
Husband's second claim is that the court failed to allocate all of the marital debts. Debts incurred by the parties during marriage are not marital property subject to division under § 452.330. Smith v. Smith, 681 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Mo.App.1984). Although it is a better practice to distribute the marital debts to alleviate future dissension, the trial court is under no duty to do so. In re Marriage of Smith v. Smith, 652 S.W.2d 743, 744 (Mo.App.1983). Yet, the existence and extent of marital indebtedness may affect the fairness of the property division, because debts affect the net value of the marital estate. Oldfield v. Oldfield, 666 S.W.2d 17, 19 (Mo.App.1984).
In this case neither party requested findings of fact or conclusions of law. We therefore consider all fact issues as having been found in accordance with the result reached. Rule 73.01(a)(2). We presume that the trial court considered whether marital debts existed as well as the extent of marital indebtedness in arriving at its division of marital property. Husband's second point is denied.
Husband next challenges the court's valuation of his vested 2 pension plan. He does not argue with the fact that the pension benefits accumulated during his marriage are marital property subject to division. Kuchta v. Kuchta, 636 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Mo. banc 1982). Further, he does not object to the "immediate offset method" of distributing the pension plan, whereby the court awarded him all of his pension benefits, offset by other marital property awarded to wife. See Lynch v. Lynch, 665 S.W.2d 20, 23 (Mo.App.1983). His only argument is that the present value of his pension benefits is grossly overestimated. He advocates the use of his expert's appraisal of $172.73, in lieu of wife's expert's valuation of $2,571.00.
There was substantial evidence to support the $2,571.00 valuation. As trier of fact, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by accepting that figure and rejecting the $172.73 figure. Husband's third point is denied.
Husband's fourth point challenges the trial court's distribution of an uncollected judgment of $11,000.00 as marital property. He alleges that the judgment in a case styled Golleher v. Williams is worthless. At the dissolution proceeding, however, husband produced no evidence to establish that the judgment was uncollectable, as opposed to merely uncollected. In fact, the only reference to the judgment's being worthless was in a question asked of wife: "As far as you know that judgment is totally uncollectable; isn't it?" She replied, "As far as I know I never heard any more from Mr. Stokes [the attorney] on that." Using the appropriate standard of review, the finding that the judgment had value was not against the weight of the evidence before the court.
Now we must consider whether the court properly determined this particular uncollected judgment to be marital property subject to distribution. In so doing we do not reach the broader issue of the extent to which other types of judgments received by a spouse during the marriage may be marital property.
The trial court has broad discretion in determining the distribution of marital property. In re Marriage of Brown v. Brown, 664 S.W.2d 268 (Mo.App.1984). Under § 452.330, RSMo (1978) marital property includes "[...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Reed, In re
...burden of showing an abuse of discretion in making the ruling. S.R. v. S.M.R., 709 S.W.2d 910, 916 (Mo.App.1986); Golleher v. Golleher, 697 S.W.2d 547, 550 (Mo.App.1985). This court has held that when there is an abuse of discretion, it is qualified to determine the reasonable value of the ......
-
Pauley v. Pauley
...S.W.2d 621, 625 (Mo.App.1987). It is husband's burden to show the trial court abused its discretion in the award. Golleher v. Golleher, 697 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Mo.App.1985). Here, husband neither objected to the fee statement of wife's attorney, nor asked any questions about it being excessive......
-
Petties v. Petties
...of the marital assets, a trial court could consider the net effect of the debts associated with those assets. See Golleher v. Golleher, 697 S.W.2d 547, 549 (Mo.App. 1985). Section 452.330.1, was amended in 1998 to expressly require the division of marital debts, in addition to marital prope......
-
S.R. v. S.M.R., s. 49768
...to be considered in determining the propriety of the award. Trunko v. Trunko, 642 S.W.2d 673, 677 (Mo.App.1982); Golleher v. Golleher, 697 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Mo.App.1985). The issue of attorneys' fees is therefore remanded for reconsideration by the trial court. We nevertheless address the is......