Hatchette v. Hatchette

• Decision Date: 23 October 2001
• Docket Number: WD 59148,WD 58633
• Parties: CLIFFORD R. HATCHETTE, Appellant, v. JAMIE L. HATCHETTE, Respondent WD 58633 Consolidated with WD 59148 COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT October 23, 2001, Filed
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

57 S.W.3d 884

Clifford R. HATCHETTE Appellant v Jamie L. HATCHETTE,

Respondent

WD 58633, WD 59148 (Consolidated)

COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT

October 23, 2001, Filed

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.

Honorable W. Stephen Nixon, Judge.

Hugh F. O'Donnell, III, Esq., Attorney for Appellant -- Kansas City, MO.

Debra L. Snoke, Esq., Attorney for Respondent -- Kansas City, MO.

Before Spinden, C.J., Howard and Hardwick, J.J. All concur.

HARDWICK, J.

Clifford Hatchette appeals an Amended Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, claiming the trial court erred in the division of marital property and in awarding child support, maintenance, and attorney's fees on appeal. We affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural History

Clifford Hatchette (Husband) and Jamie Hatchette (Wife) were married in December 1987. Three children were born of their marriage: Caitlin, born May 16, 1989; Cassidy, born August 22, 1991; and Casey, born March 20, 1994. The parties separated in December 1997, but continued residing together in the marital home.

On January 12, 1998, Husband filed a Petition For Dissolution Of Marriage in the Jackson County Circuit Court. Upon motion of Wife, the court ordered Husband to pay $1,100.00 per month in temporary maintenance. The order also required Husband to pay household expenses, including the mortgage, utilities, property taxes, insurance, insured medical costs and most of the parties' credit card bills.

The trial was held February 2, 2000. On April 11, 2000, the court entered a Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, which it amended on May 10, 2000. The Amended Judgment awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children with Wife as the primary physical custodian. Husband was ordered to pay Wife $987.00 per month in child support and $1,200.00 per month for maintenance. The marital property and debts, net valued at $190,904.00, were divided 58% to Wife and 42% to Husband.

Husband filed a Notice of Appeal, and Wife motioned the trial court for attorney's fees on appeal. Husband opposed the motion. On September 12, 2000, the trial court entered a judgment awarding Wife $5,000.00 in attorney's fees on appeal.

Husband appeals the Amended Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage and the Judgment for Attorney's Fees on Appeal.

Standard Of Review

A judgment of dissolution will be affirmed on appeal unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, (Mo. banc 1976). Appellant has the burden of proving error. Wright v. Wright, 1 S.W.3d 52, 57 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999).

Marital Property

Husband challenges the trial court's division of marital property on two grounds: 1) the court erroneously declared the law in determining whether Wife's misconduct was a factor in the property division; and 2) there was no substantial evidence to support the court's finding that Husband engaged in marital misconduct. Based on these errors, Appellant concludes the court abused its discretion in making an unequal property division awarding 58% of the marital estate to Wife and 42% to Husband.

The trial court has considerable discretion in dividing marital property, and an appellate court will interfere only if the division is so heavily and unduly weighted in one party's favor as to amount to an abuse of discretion. Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865, 869 (Mo. banc 1984). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is sufficiently arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice. Wright, 1 S.W.3d at 57. If reasonable minds can differ about propriety of the trial court's ruling, there was no abuse of discretion. Id. We presume the trial court's division of property is correct, and Appellant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption. Nelson v. Nelson, 25 S.W.3d 511, 517 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000).

Marital property and debts must be divided "in such proportions as the court deems just" after consideration of the five factors in Section 452.330.1, RSMo. *fn1 This division need not be equal but only fair and equitable under the circumstances of the case. Nelson, 25 S.W.3d at 517. Generally, the division of marital property should be substantially equal unless one or more statutory or non-statutory factors causes such a division to be unjust. Id. at 518.

In this case, the judgment reflects that the trial court considered all five statutory factors and found that Husband's misconduct warranted an unequal division of property. This finding was consistent with Section 452.330.1(4) *fn2 which lists "the conduct of the parties during the marriage" as the fourth statutory factor. Applying this provision, courts have held that marital misconduct becomes a factor in property division only when the offending conduct places burdens on the other spouse. McIntosh v. McIntosh, 41 S.W.3d 60, 68-69 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001).

The trial court heard evidence about the alleged misconduct of both parties in this case. The judgment includes specific findings of Husband's financial misconduct. The court found that Husband failed to follow court orders to account for his income and to deposit the net proceeds of his bonus into a trust account. Husband dominated control of finances throughout the marriage and unreasonably restricted Wife's access to marital assets. Wife was forced to live with Husband, even after the parties separated, because Husband did not provide sufficient resources for her to establish a separate residence. The court concluded that Husband substantially contributed to the breakdown of the marriage by disrespecting and manipulating Wife's role as his financial partner.

The judgment further states that Wife substantially contributed to the marriage breakdown by openly having an extramarital affair that began in July or August 1997 (four or five months prior to the parties' separation) and continued at the time of trial in February 2000. Wife purchased gifts for her paramour but did not spend significant marital resources on the relationship. After Husband filed for divorce, Wife purchased and brought home six pets with full knowledge of Husband's allergic reaction to animals. The parties previously had no pets, and the court found tha? Wife's actions were done, in part, to aggravate Husband.

Weighing the relative misconduct, the court stated in its judgment With regard to division of property and debt, [Husband] has engaged in misconduct that has placed an undue burden on the marriage, which the Court has considered, among other factors, in making its division of assets and debts in this Judgment Of Dissolution of Marriage. While [Wife] has engaged in misconduct that has placed an emotional burden on [Husband], and which has been hateful, that misconduct has not placed an undue financial burden on the marriage.

Husband argues that the trial court erroneously declared the law in considering the parties' conduct under Section 452.330.1(4) because the judgment states that Husband's misconduct placed an "undue burden" on the marriage, while Wife's misconduct did not place an "undue financial burden" on the marriage. He contends the court not only applied an improper standard in evaluating Wife's misconduct, but also a different standard than was applied to Husband's misconduct.

Our review is not limited by the trial court's chosen terminology in evaluating the parties' conduct; rather we must focus on whether the court considered the extent to which the misconduct burdened the marital relationship. Those burdens may or may not have been financial in nature, but they become significant when the "misconduct of one spouse changes the balance so that the other must assume a greater share of the partnership load." Nelson, 25 S.W.3d at 519. As we noted in McIntosh: The purpose of considering misconduct is not to punish the party guilty of misconduct; rather it is to attempt to be realistic and just in issues of property and maintenance by recognizing that significant misconduct, of whatever kind, negatively affects the marital relationship and places burdens, even if not economic burdens, on the other party to the relationship.

41 S.W.3d at 69 (citations omitted).

We find no error in the trial court's maintenance award, as it is clear a determination was made that Husband's misconduct in restrictively controlling the finances played an extraordinary role in changing the marital balance, while Wife's extramarital affair did not as significantly impact the relationship. The court applied the proper analytical standard in deciding that the Husband's misconduct significantly burdened the marriage and, therefore, justified an unequal property division in Wife's favor.

We further find that the determination of Husband's misconduct was supported by substantial evidence. The amended judgment recites numerous incidents of Husband's malfeasance in disregarding court orders and denying Wife access to marital funds. While Husband presented evidence to counter the allegations of misconduct, the trial court was free to disbelieve it. Even if the evidence could support a different conclusion, we defer to the trial court's findings, as it is in the best position to weigh the evidence, determine credibility and sincerity of the witnesses, and determine other intangibles not revealed in a transcript. Ellis v. Ellis, 970 S.W.2d 416, 418 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998).

Upon review of the record, Husband has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion with regard to the marital property award. Point One is denied.

Child Support

Husband claims the trial court's child support calculation was in error because Husband was not given proper credit for overnight visitation.

A child support award in a dissolution will be upheld unless the trial court abused its discretion or erroneously applied the law. Crews v. Crews, 949 S.W.2d 659,...