Hoberock v. Hoberock

Decision Date21 June 2005
Docket NumberNo. ED 84024.,ED 84024.
Citation164 S.W.3d 26
PartiesBarbara Jo HOBEROCK, Respondent, v. Gregory Eugene HOBEROCK, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Cary J. Mogerman, Clayton, MO, for appellant.

Justin C. Cordonnier and Jeffery T. McPherson, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Presiding Judge.

In this marital-dissolution case, the husband, Gregory E. Hoberock, appeals the trial court's judgment and decree of dissolution of his marriage to wife, Barbara J. Hoberock. Husband raises three points on appeal, challenging the trial court's child-support order, and its classification and valuation of a closely-held business, hth companies, inc.(HTH). We summarily deny Husband's claim regarding the trial court's valuation of the company and find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by an exposition of the detailed facts and law.1 The judgment as to the valuation of HTH is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b). As discussed in this opinion, we affirm the judgment as to the trial court's classification of HTH stock as marital property. We are unable to rule on Husband's claims of error regarding the trial court's child-support order, however, because of inconsistencies in the record. Accordingly, the judgment as to child support is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions.

HTH Stock

Wife petitioned for a dissolution of marriage after twenty-three years of marriage. The parties have three children. Approximately six years after they were married, Husband and Wife started an insulation contracting business, HTH, which was incorporated in 1984. Upon incorporation there were three shareholders, Wife and two other women, each of whom was issued 50 shares of stock. Approximately one year after incorporation, Husband and Wife decided to buy out the other two shareholders so that Wife would be the only shareholder. The company redeemed 50 shares from one shareholder as treasury stock and Wife purchased 50 shares from the other shareholder at book value, pursuant to a stock repurchasing agreement. After these transactions, Wife owned 100 shares and was HTH's sole shareholder.

Within months of forming HTH, it became Wife's full-time job, or as Wife described, in many instances it became "more than a full-time job." Wife's duties consisted of attending to all the administrative and financial matters of the company, and generally anything other than the solicitation and execution of contracts that were Husband's responsibilities. Initially, Wife was the president and treasurer of HTH. After the other two shareholders were bought out, Wife also became secretary of the corporation. Over time, Wife's responsibilities increased. In May of 1999, Wife assumed the controller's duties, and shortly thereafter assumed the duties of the accounts-payable clerk and the payroll clerk after those employees left the company. Wife's responsibilities required long working hours, often until very late at night. She testified she rarely slept over four hours a night, and never took a week off of work for vacation.

After years of working to build the business, Wife came to the conclusion in the late spring or early summer of 1999 that she did not want to continue working at HTH. Wife knew that covering for three employees in addition to her own duties was more than she would be physically able to do for an extended period of time. The company was monopolizing Wife's life and, as a result, she was not able to see her children or attend their activities. Wife testified that she and Husband had already made the amount of money that they had set as their goal, and that she was tired of making personal and familial sacrifices for the business when it was no longer necessary to support the family. Husband and Wife discussed various options, including liquidating the company, but eventually decided to downsize the company, with the intent that Wife would not have to keep working full-time, if at all. Husband and Wife began to downsize the company but, because there was still a shortage of office staff, Wife continued to work long hours at the business. And Wife continued to do so, even after discovering, in August of 1999, that Husband was having an extramarital affair with a female employee of HTH. As Wife testified, she had made a commitment to see the business through its current crisis period and to keep the employees from losing their jobs, and that she intended to honor that commitment no matter how upset she was with Husband.

In August of 2000, Wife transferred her HTH shares into Husband's name. Before the transfer, Wife had two stock certificates in her name. Wife wrote "gifted to [Husband] ..." on both certificates and drew an "X" through the face of the certificates. The second page of the certificates indicated that the certificates were cancelled and replaced by a new certificate, Certificate Number 12. Wife then prepared the new certificate, for 100 shares, in Husband's name. Wife placed a post-it note on the certificate, on which she wrote "gifted." Wife placed the canceled certificates and a copy of the new certificate in the company's corporate record book, and then placed the new certificate in a safe-deposit box registered to both parties.

Various testimony was adduced at trial regarding explanations Wife gave for the transfer. After she transferred the stock into Husband's name, Wife advised both Husband and the HTH advisory board of her actions. Several members of the advisory board who, like Wife, are certified public accountants, asked about the tax consequences of the transfer. Wife's response was that there were no tax consequences because spousal gifts were not subject to a gift tax. The HTH vice president testified at trial that he had conversations with Wife in which Wife had stated that she had gifted the HTH stock to Husband. Husband testified that Wife told him that she was gifting the shares to him. Wife testified that when she transferred the stock from her name into Husband's name it was not her intent to give up ownership in the company or render the stock no longer marital property. She testified that the transfer was not intended to have any effect on the family assets, and that the only discussions regarding the transfer were in the tax context, and what the tax consequences would be of a transfer. As Wife explained, the plan was to have her withdraw from working at the company and to give Husband the authority to manage the operations on a day-to-day basis. Wife further explained that she believed that successful businesses were those where the owner is on the premises, that she did not believe in absentee ownership, and that she did not believe it would be in the best interest of the business for her to be an absentee owner. Wife thought it best that, if Husband was to be the person working at and in charge of the business, that he also be the owner of their family stock.

After the stock was transferred into...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Denney v. Winton
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 2006
    ...Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976); Winter v. Winter, 167 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Mo.App. S.D.2005); Hoberock v. Hoberock, 164 S.W.3d 26, 29-30 (Mo.App. E.D. 2005). "A child support provision will be upheld unless the trial court abused its discretion or erroneously applied the law......
  • Copling v. Gao, ED 99554.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 2014
    ...in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision and disregard all contradictory evidence and inferences.” Hoberock v. Hoberock, 164 S.W.3d 26, 30 (Mo.App.E.D.2005). If a party, however, fails to raise an argument or claim of error at the trial court level, the matter is not preser......
  • Vinson v. Vinson, No. ED 88702 (Mo. App. 11/13/2007)
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 2007
    ...the judgment is against the weight of the evidence or the judgment erroneously declares or applies the law. Hoberock v. Hoberock, 164 S.W.3d 26, 30 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). This court views the evidence and permissible inferences that may be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the jud......
  • Allee v. Ruby Scott Sigears Estate, WD 64980.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 2006
    ...such as credibility, sincerity, character of the witnesses, and other intangibles not revealed in the transcript." Hoberock v. Hoberock, 164 S.W.3d 26, 30 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). Point The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All concur. 1. A third daughter, Kathleen Steinhauser, had predec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • § 6.02 Property Acquired by Gift
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 6 Types of Property That Frequently Are Designated Separate Property by Statute
    • Invalid date
    ...2020 Okla. 20, 465 P.3d 1187 (2020). [89] Bhati v. Bhati, 32 So.3d 1107 (La. App. 2010).[90] See: Missouri: Hoberock v. Hoberock, 164 S.W.3d 26 (Mo. App. 2005). Washington: In re Marriage of Marzetta, 129 Wash. App. 607, 120 P.3d 75 (2005). [91] Bowman v. Prinster, 384 S.W.3d 365 (Mo. App. ......
  • Section 15.3 Property Acquired by Gift, Devise, Bequest, or Descent
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Family Law (2014 Supp) Chapter 15 Characterization and Division of Property in Divorce
    • Invalid date
    ...credible evidence to support Husband’s contention that the property was gifted to him.” Brady, 39 S.W.3d at 561. Hoberock v. Hoberock, 164 S.W.3d 26 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005), is an interesting case regarding a claim of gift. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that closely h......

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