Jung v. Jung, 65129
| Decision Date | 15 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 65129,65129 |
| Citation | 886 S.W.2d 737 |
| Parties | Christopher H. JUNG, Appellant, v. Beverly A. JUNG, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Diane Campbell Howard, Cape Girardeau, for appellant.
Richard G. Steele, Cape Girardeau, for respondent.
Appellant, Christopher H. Jung ("husband"), appeals from the Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court's order dissolving husband's marriage to respondent, Beverly A. Jung ("wife"). We remand for redetermination of the maintenance award, and otherwise affirm.
Husband and wife married August 10, 1964, and had three children. Wife, who never graduated from high school, supported the couple through a series of jobs while husband attended medical school. At the time of dissolution, husband, a physician, was employed by his wholly-owned professional corporation, SEMO ENT Consultants, Inc. During the three years prior to dissolution of the marriage, husband earned the following compensation: $256,624.96 in 1990; $158,642.94 in 1991; and $209,971.18 in 1992. Furthermore, the corporation paid husband $3,366 per month for office rent and $3,150 per month for equipment rent, and provided his medical and dental insurance. Husband also received a $1,000 fee every month for his service on a board of directors.
From the time husband opened his private practice in 1974 until several months after the parties' separation in 1992, wife worked as the office manager for husband's corporation. Wife received the following compensation during the three years prior to dissolution: $23,124.85 in 1990 and 1991; and $19,000 in 1992 (for nine months).
Husband and wife jointly owned a real estate rental business in which both parties were actively involved. The parties utilized the real estate rental business to generate losses and reduce their tax liability.
The parties separated on or about July 17, 1992. On August 24, 1992, husband petitioned for dissolution. The case was tried before the Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court September 2 and 3, 1993. On October 21, 1993, the trial court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order, judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage. 1
The trial court found the marriage to be irretrievably broken, and characterized the breakdown of the parties' marriage as "almost entirely attributable to [husband's] current relationship with another woman." The court found husband to have "flaunted" his affair before wife, their children, and the community at large. Husband--using marital assets and income--took his mistress and her children on several expensive trips, bought her and her children clothes, "loaned" her furniture, let her use his car and credit cards, and purchased jewelry for her, including two different engagement rings.
The trial court determined that husband's conduct made it "intolerable" for wife to continue working in husband's corporation. The court further found wife unable to earn sufficient income with which to maintain the lifestyle to which she had become accustomed during her marriage, assuming she could find similar employment. The court caustically noted that while wife's lifestyle was "shattered," husband's lifestyle was unchanged: "[h]e is doing everything he did before only now with a different, younger woman."
The trial court found husband's personal living expenses to be $7,139 per month, and that of wife to be $4,400 per month. The court ruled that wife was capable of finding at least minimum wage employment due to her several years of experience as an office manager, despite her age (54) and lack of education. The court found wife able to contribute $800 per month to her own maintenance. The court also noted that wife would receive considerable interest income from non-retirement accounts distributed to her.
The couple had three children, but only their youngest ("son")--a college student--was still unemancipated at the time of dissolution. The trial court awarded wife primary custody of son, with husband agreeing to pay child support of $1,700 per month to cover son's reasonable living expenses.
During the pendency of the dissolution, the parties' marital home and three rental properties owned by their real estate company had been sold, while contracts for the sale of two other properties were executed. The trial court noted the proceeds from the sales were evenly distributed between the parties and were not to be considered in dividing the remaining marital assets. Wife's share of the proceeds from the sale of marital properties amounted to approximately $97,000.
The trial court awarded wife the following marital real estate: a time share in Arkansas; one half interest in a North Padre Island condominium; and a condominium in Columbia, Missouri. Wife also received a total of $16,379 deposited in four bank accounts, and various securities, stocks, bonds, and related instruments with a cumulative value of $98,826.
Pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the trial court awarded wife a share of husband's pension and profit sharing plans. Said share was valued at $570,695, and was to commence paying out to wife five and one half years from the date of the order.
The trial court further awarded wife a cash settlement of $300,000, payable by husband either in a lump sum, or in monthly payments of $3,639.83 for ten years (factoring in an annual interest rate of 8%). The court also determined wife was entitled to periodic maintenance payments of $3,600 per month. This figure represented the shortfall between wife's estimated earning capacity of $800 per month and wife's reasonable expenses of $4,400 per month. Finally, the court noted wife would receive "considerable" interest income from the accounts distributed to her.
Husband appeals the order. For his first point, husband contends the trial court erred by awarding wife any maintenance payments, as wife had been awarded sufficient property to meet her reasonable needs and therefore did not qualify for maintenance. For his second point on appeal, husband argues that if a need for maintenance does exist, the court erred in awarding wife maintenance of $3,600 per month as that figure exceeds the amount necessary for wife to meet her reasonable needs. We address these two points together.
An appellate court will sustain a decree or judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law or unless it erroneously applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Awards of maintenance are matters resting within the broad discretion of the trial court; we review such awards only for an abuse of that discretion. Vehlewald v. Vehlewald, 853 S.W.2d 944, 953 (Mo.App.E.D.1993).
A spouse seeking maintenance must meet two statutory threshold requirements: the spouse must (1) lack sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to him or her, to provide for his or her reasonable needs; and (2) be unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment. RSMo § 452.335.1. 2 If the spouse is entitled to maintenance, said maintenance shall be in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors, including the ability of the party seeking maintenance to meet his or her needs independently and the ability of the paying spouse to meet his or her own needs while paying maintenance. RSMo § 452.335.2(1), (8); Kinder v. Kinder, 777 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Mo.App.W.D.1989). The recipient spouse is not required to deplete his or her share of the marital property awarded in the dissolution proceedings before being entitled to maintenance. Barth v. Barth, 800 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Mo.App.E.D.1990).
Missouri courts hold that the interest the spouse will earn from his or her share of the marital property must be considered in determining the necessity for, or amount of, maintenance. Failure to consider the recipient spouse's reasonable expectation of income from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarneja v. Tarneja
...annual income in excess of $475,000.00 annually. 10. See also Fischer v. Fischer, 66 S.W.3d 43, 44 (Mo.App.2001); Jung v. Jung, 886 S.W.2d 737, 740 (Mo.App.1994); In re Marriage of Novak, 83 S.W.3d 597 (Mo.App.2002); Cohen v. Cohen, 73 S.W.3d 39 (Mo.App.2002); N.M.O., 115 S.W.3d at 857; Mue......
-
Tarneja v. Tarneja, No. 26421 (MO 5/15/2005)
...annual income in excess of $475,000.00 annually. 10. See also Fischer v. Fischer, 66 S.W.3d 43, 44 (Mo.App. 2001); Jung v. Jung, 886 S.W.2d 737, 740 (Mo.App. 1994); In re Marriage of Novak, 83 S.W.3d 597 (Mo.App. 2002); Cohen v. Cohen, 73 S.W.3d 39 (Mo.App. 2002); N.M.O., 115 S.W.3d at 857;......
-
In re the Marriage of Mary P. Petersen
...the largesse to the parent from a third party. Margolin v. Margolin, 796 S.W.2d 38, 44 (Mo.App. 1990). See also Jung v. Jung, 886 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Mo.App. 1994), and Taranto v. Missouri Dep't of Soc. Services, 962 S.W.2d 897, 900-901 (Mo.App. While one's salary is usually the most important......
-
L.R.S. v. C.A.S.
...Hill v. Hill , 53 S.W.3d 114, 116 (Mo. banc 2001) ); Breihan v. Breihan , 73 S.W.3d 771, 777 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) ; Jung v. Jung , 886 S.W.2d 737, 740 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994). The trial court commits reversible error if it fails to consider the recipient spouse's marital property award, includ......
-
§ 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
...the tax consequences of the division of the estate.[450] See Rykert v. Rykert, 934 P.2d 519 (Ore. App. 1997). See Jung v. Jung, 886 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. App. 1994) (where tax effect was ignored because it was unclear whether the property would be transferred pursuant to a tax-free exchange). [45......