Laffey v. Laffey

• Decision Date: 09 November 1999
• Citation: 4 S.W.3d 655
• Parties: (Mo.App. W.D. 1999) Mayetta Norlene Laffey, Respondent v. Patrick Isaac Laffey, Appellant WD56168
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

4 S.W.3d 655 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999)

Mayetta Norlene Laffey, Respondent v. Patrick Isaac Laffey, Appellant

WD56168

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

11/09/99

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Livingston County, Hon. Frank E. Tolen

Counsel for Appellant: Patrick E. Richardson

Counsel for Respondent: James A. Rahm

Opinion Summary: Patrick Laffey appeals the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to Mayetta Laffey. He contends that the trial court erred in dividing the parties' marital property without first assigning a value to Mrs. Laffey's pending personal injury claim and pending medical malpractice suit.

(1) The trial court did not err in failing to place a value on Mrs. Laffey's pending claims where the court provided for modification of maintenance in the event of a significant change in Mrs. Laffey's financial circumstances and where the evidence of value was highly speculative and uncertain.

(2) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the overall division of the parties' property. The trial court's order reflects that the court considered the economic circumstances of the parties and considered the relevant statutory factors.

Riederer, P.J.; Smart and Ellis, JJ., concur.

Per Curiam

Per Curiam:

Opinion and Order

Patrick Isaac Laffey ("Husband") appeals the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to Mayetta Norlene Laffey ("Wife"). Husband challenges the trial court's division of property and award of maintenance and attorneys' fees to Wife. In this opinion, we resolve issues related to the valuation of litigation claims and the overall fairness of the property distribution. Husband also claims that the trial court erred in sustaining objections to questions posed to Wife about litigation claims. Husband also challenges the award of maintenance and the award of attorney's fees. Finding the rulings on those contentions to be without precedential value, we hereby affirm the trial court on those rulings, and, pursuant to Rule 84.16(b), provide the analysis in a separate memorandum furnished to the parties. The judgment is affirmed.

Factual Background

The parties were married on July 12, 1959. Four children were born of the marriage, all of whom are now emancipated. On May 13, 1996, Wife filed a petition for legal separation. She later filed a petition asking the court to dissolve her marriage to Husband, award her maintenance, award her costs and attorneys' fees, and divide the marital property.

Husband was a farmer throughout the marriage. Wife spent most of the years of the marriage as a homemaker, although at times she worked as a secretary and operated a fabric and gift store. In 1990, Wife obtained an Associate Business Degree and began to work as a part-time substitute teacher and as a secretary.

Wife has a severe case of diabetes. She must test her blood twice daily and take insulin. In June 1994, Wife fell and broke her hip. She had to have a total hip replacement and now has an open wound on the hip. Later that same year, wife broke both her leg and her shoulder. Wife is physically disabled and requires a wheelchair. Her extensive medical problems require continuing treatment. Wife has a personal injury claim relating to a fall she took on a sidewalk at a friend's house. The fall resulted in her artificial shoulder joint popping out and her right arm being broken. Wife also has a separate suit against Dr. Cal Greenlaw, claiming that he was negligent in prescribing steroids and other medications causing her bones to be weak and break easily. The parties disagreed as to the value of Wife's claims and Husband's collateral claims. When the trial court divided the claims, it assigned no value to them, finding that "any substantial recovery at a future date may be a basis for a modification of maintenance, but the Court does not find that it should further impact the division of marital property."

In July 1995, Husband ceased paying the premium on Wife's health insurance, complaining that it cost too much. Wife receives Social Security disability payments of $107.00 per month and Medicare. Medicare pays 80% of her medical bills, with the exception of prescription medication and certain tests.

Husband had a drinking problem for which he went to an alcohol rehabilitation center. In 1995, Husband began a sexual relationship with another woman. Husband denied the relationship until the day before the trial, when he admitted to the adultery in supplementary interrogatory answers.

After setting apart the parties' separate property, the trial court divided the marital property as follows:

WIFE

Property

Real Estate $212,800.00

Personal Property 8,125.00

Medical Malpractice Suit (Pending) No assigned value

Personal Injury Claim (Pending) No assigned value

TOTAL $220,925.00

Debt

Medical Bills $91,035.00

CPA 250.00

TOTAL $91,285.00

NET $129,640.00 (52%)

Husband

Property

Real Estate$204,000.00

Farm Equipment 146,616.00

Personal Property 45,819.00

Collateral Interest in Malpractice Suit No assigned value

Collateral Interest in Personal Injury Suit No assigned value

TOTAL $396,435.00

Debt

Farm Credit Services $152,443.00

Income Taxes, Penalty & Interest 1990-1995 105,000.00

Income Taxes, Penalty & Interest 1997 14,874.00

1997 Property Tax 2,157.00

CPA 2,300.00

1997 Farm Operating Expenses No assigned value

TOTAL $276,774.00

NET $119,661.00 (48%)

Husband was assigned non-marital property valued at $34,000.00. The non-marital property assigned to Wife consisted of three items of tangible personal property of apparently minor value.

Husband filed a timely motion to amend or modify the judgment. The trial court amended its judgment to address the issue of crops growing on land that was awarded Wife. The court ordered Husband to continue to be responsible for crop production, including costs, and Wife to be responsible for maintenance, taxes and certain transportation expenses. Wife was given a one-third interest in the crops and Husband was awarded the remaining two-thirds. In all other respects, Husband's motion was denied.

Husband appeals the judgment.

Standard of Review

We review under the guidelines established in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). Thus, we will affirm the decision of the trial court unless there is no sub-stantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evi-dence, or it er-roneously de-clares or applies the law. Id. at 32; Al-Yusuf v. Al-Yusuf, 969 S.W.2d 778, 783 (Mo. App. 1998). We give deference to the trial court's superior ability to view the witnesses and determine credibility; it is free to believe or disbelieve all, part or none of the testimony given by any of the witnesses. Price v. Price, 921 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Mo. App. 1996). Accordingly, we accept the evidence and inferences favorable to the trial court's ruling and disregard contrary evidence. Mehra v. Mehra, 819 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Mo. banc 1991). We defer to the trial court's decision, even if the evidence could support a different conclusion. Lee v. Lee, 967 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Mo. App. 1998).

Failure to Value Personal Injury Claims

In Point I, Husband contends that the trial court erred in dividing the parties' marital property without first assigning a value to the pending personal injury claim and the pending medical malpractice suit.¹ He claims that the court erred in finding that these claims had no impact on the division of marital property because it resulted in a grossly unjust and unfair division of property.

Husband cites Al-Yusuf, 969 S.W.2d 778, Jobe v. Jobe, 708 S.W.2d 322 (Mo. App. 1986), and McClement v. McClement, 681 S.W.2d 500 (Mo. App. 1984), for the proposition that unliquidated claims for damages arising from personal injury during the marriage are marital property. Wife does not dispute this. However, none of the cases cited by Husband support his theory that the trial court was required to assign a value to the claims. Al-Yusuf and Jobe simply support the proposition that the claims were marital property. In McClement, the court held that it was not error for the trial court not to assign a value to the spouse's personal injury claim. The court, noting that the value of the personal injury claim was minimal and incidental, found that the distribution of the claim to the wife without valuing it did not "upset the fairness and equity of the property division." Id. at 503. Husband argues by inference from McClement that if a claim is not "minimal and incidental," it must be valued by the trial court. We disagree. In some cases, the evidence of value may be sufficiently clear and uncontroverted that the court may proceed to place a value on the claim. McClement does not hold that the dissolution court must value every unliquidated claim; it merely rebuffed the challenge in that case by noting that even had the claim been valued, it would have been an incidental amount. Husband fails to present any other authority that the court in this case erred in failing to value the claims.

In the instant case, the trial court divided the marital property, with approximately 52% awarded to Wife and 48% awarded to Husband. Neither party requested specific findings under Rule 73.01(a)(2). The trial court assigned Wife her interest in both claims and Husband his collateral interest in both claims. It placed no assigned value on the claims, finding that "any substantial recovery at a future date...