Knigge v. Knigge, 66164

• Decision Date: 27 June 1995
• Docket Number: No. 66164,66164
• Citation: 903 S.W.2d 225
• Parties: Tina D. KNIGGE, Respondent, v. Robert David KNIGGE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 225

903 S.W.2d 225

Tina D. KNIGGE, Respondent, v. Robert David KNIGGE, Appellant.

No. 66164.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Two.

June 27, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to

Supreme Court Denied July 27, 1995.

Andrew H. Koor, Suddarth & Koor, O'Fallon, for appellant.

Michael A. Turken, Cundiff Turken and Londoff, St. Charles, for respondent.

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

Husband appeals from portions of the trial court's decree in this dissolution of marriage case. We affirm and remand for clarification of one portion of the decree.

The parties separated after approximately six years of marriage. Husband challenges the award of permanent maintenance to the wife rather than an award of rehabilitative maintenance. There is no evidence to support an award of rehabilitative maintenance. Such maintenance is awarded where substantial evidence demonstrates an impending change in the financial condition of the parties. Smith v. Smith, 840 S.W.2d 276 (Mo.App.1992)[1, 2]. That may occur, for instance, where one spouse is pursuing additional training or education which will markedly change that person's earning capacity, and a known time frame exists for completion of that training or education. The record here does not reveal any potential change in the financial condition of the parties within any reasonable time frame. Wife is earning more than she has ever previously earned, she is not in training for any higher paying position and her level of pay is completely inadequate to meet her reasonable expenses. There was no error in awarding permanent maintenance.

The main issue on appeal concerns the distribution of marital property and more specifically the valuation of husband's closely held corporation, Roof Consultant Services Inc. The court valued the business at $196,000. Expert testimony supported that valuation and the expert included in his valuation some value for good-will. Relying solely upon Hanson v. Hanson, 738 S.W.2d 429 (Mo. banc 1987) and its progeny husband contends that there was no evidence to support the good-will value. Hanson established that where a spouse's business is adjudged to be a professional practice or highly skilled personal service business, special rules apply concerning when and how a value for good-will may be included in the valuation of the business. For purposes of our decision we will accept husband's contention that the evidence adduced was insufficient to satisfy the rules enunciated in Hanson for determining good-will value of Roof Consultant Services.

Hanson applies only to a limited type of business, not to every closely held corporation. No case has definitively established what tests are to be applied to determine whether a business is a professional practice or highly skilled personal service business. Dental, chiropractic, accounting, and veterinary practices, a real estate brokerage, a custom tailor business, and an art studio have been held to be professional practices or businesses involving highly skilled personal services. Hanson, supra; Theilen v. Theilen, 847 S.W.2d 116 (Mo.App.1992); In re Marriage of Parker, 762 S.W.2d 506 (Mo.App.1988); Gerard v. Gerard, 825 S.W.2d 21 (Mo.App.1992); Cohn v. Cohn, 841 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.App.1992); Wilson v. Wilson, 822 S.W.2d 917 (Mo.App.1991); Ikonomou v. Ikonomou, 776 S.W.2d 868 (Mo.App.1989); Hogan v. Hogan, 796 S.W.2d 400 (Mo.App.1990). A machine shop has been held not to be such a business. In re Marriage of Brooks, 742 S.W.2d 585 (Mo.App.1987). Generally, a professional practice or business involving highly skilled personal services subject to the Hanson rule is a business where the personal reputation of the spouse and the service provided by the spouse are the reason why clients of the business return to and recommend the business, rather than the reputation of the business as an entity. Hanson, supra at . Inevitably each case must be decided on its facts and precedent is of little value other than in setting the general guidelines.

It is true, as husband contends, that he was a key employee in the business and that wife recognized that the business was worth more with him running it. But we do not find that evidence alone sufficient to fit the business within the Hanson rule. Roof Consultant Services' business was described by husband as follows:

I provide unbias expertise. I'm a professional...