Milne v. Milne

• Decision Date: 13 July 2004
• Docket Number: No. WD 62743.,WD 62743.
• Citation: 138 S.W.3d 162
• Parties: Troy A. MILNE, Respondent, v. Amy Lynn MILNE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

138 S.W.3d 162

Troy A. MILNE, Respondent, v. Amy Lynn MILNE, Appellant.

No. WD 62743.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 13, 2004.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Holt County, William S. Richards, J Thomas R. Summers, St. Joseph, MO, for appellant.

Erwin L. Milne, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before RONALD R. HOLLIGER, ROBERT G. ULRICH, and JAMES M. SMART, JR., JJ.

JAMES M. SMART, JR., Judge.

Amy Milne ("Wife") appeals a decree dissolving her marriage to Troy Milne ("Husband"). Wife raises three points on appeal regarding the trial court's division of marital property. Wife contends that the court erred (1) in calculating the marital component of the family home owned by Husband, (2) in failing to designate the value of grain from farming operations conducted by Husband as marital property, and (3) in dividing the marital property unequally. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a division of marital property consistent with this opinion.

Factual Background

The parties were married on June 17, 2000. No children were born of the marriage. The parties resided in a home that Husband had purchased prior to the marriage. On or about April 12, 2002, the parties separated. Nearly one month later, on May 1, Husband filed a "Petition for Dissolution of Marriage" with the Circuit Court of Holt County. On May 13, Wife answered Husband's petition and filed a counter-petition.

This matter went to trial on December 12, 2002. In support of their petitions, both parties testified, called witnesses to the stand, and entered evidence into the record.

On December 26, 2002, the court entered a Judgment and Decree of Dissolution, ordering the dissolution of the marriage and taking the property issues under advisement. On March 14, 2003, the court entered a Final Judgment and Decree of Dissolution and Property Settlement. Wife subsequently filed a motion to amend the judgment, alleging that the court failed to specify the marital and separate property of the parties. On April 14, 2003, the court entered a Final Judgment and Decree of Dissolution and Property Settlement Nunc Pro Tunc.

The trial court awarded Husband the home (that he acquired prior to the marriage) as separate property and assigned him any remaining debt on the property. The court, nevertheless, found that the home had a marital component in the sum of $6,665.00. The trial court awarded Wife $15,743.79 in marital property and assigned her $5,000 in marital debt, for a net value of $10,743.79. The trial court awarded Husband $47,032.79 in marital property. The court also ordered Husband to pay Wife $10,000 "to equalize the division." Thus, Husband was awarded $37,032.79 (or 64%) of the marital property, while Wife was awarded $20,743.79 (or 36%) of the marital property.

Wife appeals.

Analysis

Murphy v. Carron governs our review of a court-tried dissolution case. 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). We must affirm the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares the law. Belcher v. Belcher, 106 S.W.3d 601, 602 (Mo.App.2003). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the decree, disregarding contrary evidence and deferring to the trial court even if the evidence could support a different conclusion. Carter v. Carter, 869 S.W.2d 822, 830 (Mo.App.1994).

Section 452.330¹ mandates a two-step process for the court's distribution of property. The court must (1) set aside to each spouse his or her non-marital property and (2) divide the marital property and debts in such proportions as it deems just considering all relevant factors. § 452.330.1; see also Jinks v. Jinks, 120 S.W.3d 301, 306 (Mo.App.2003). The trial court's division is presumed correct, and the challenging party bears the burden of overcoming this presumption. Taylor v. Taylor, 25 S.W.3d 634, 639 (Mo.App.2000).

Point I: Marital Component of the Home

In her first point on appeal, Wife argues that the trial court erred in calculating the marital component of the family residence owned by Husband.

During the marriage, the parties resided in a home that Husband had purchased (subject to a mortgage) prior to the marriage. After the parties married, title remained in Husband's name only. Generally, property acquired by a spouse prior to marriage is that spouse's separate property upon dissolution. McKown v. McKown, 108 S.W.3d 180, 183 (Mo.App. 2003). However, an increase in the value of separate property can constitute marital property to the extent that marital assets contributed to such an increase. § 452.330.2(5). The parties agree that two mortgage payments of $10,350.00 were made out of marital funds. Because marital funds contributed to an increase in equity in the property, the court properly granted the marital estate an interest in the property. See McKown, 108 S.W.3d at 185 (citing R.D. v. J.D., 764 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Mo.App.1989)).

In determining the marital component of the property, the court looked at the equity value attributable to all mortgage payments made from the time of purchase. It divided that figure ($16,361.00) by the number of months that Husband occupied the property (54). This figure of $302.98, according to the court, constitutes the "equity value per month." In order to calculate the marital portion of that value, the court then multiplied $302.98 by the number of months that the couple spent married (22, according to the court). Thus, the court found that the marital component of the home was $6,665.00.

Wife contends that the court should have used the method she suggested at trial. Wife testified that of the two payments made out of marital funds, around $13,509.00 constituted principal and around $7,191.00 constituted interest. The principal, Wife claims, represents the marital component of the home. At trial, Husband testified that the increase in the equity value from the date of purchase to the present time (or 54 months) equals $16,361.00. The court apparently relied on Husband's figures to calculate the marital interest in the home.

Wife cites no authority that compels the court to look at the principal paid out of marital funds in determining the marital component of the property. Instead, Wife essentially contends that her employment as an accountant validates her suggestion. Neither party, however, presented any evidence as to the actual value of the home. Husband and Wife merely presented different methods for calculating the marital interest in the home. The trial court has broad discretion in classifying property. Runge v. Runge, 103 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Mo.App.2003). Neither of the methods proposed to the court was unassailably valid, and neither was completely absurd. The court was given two imperfect options. The court was free to accept Husband's proposed method of valuation and to reject Wife's method. Crews v. Crews, 949 S.W.2d 659, 665 (Mo.App.1997). Thus, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion here by looking at the "equity value" acquired during the marriage.

Wife further argues that even if we uphold the court's formula, its calculation based on that formula is incorrect. Wife contends that the duration of the marriage was 30 months, not 22 months. Husband concedes Wife's point. Moreover, the record supports Wife's contention, as it reflects that the parties were married from June 17, 2000, through December 26, 2002. The court may have inadvertently used April 12, 2002 (the date on which the parties separated), or May 1, 2002 (the date on which Husband filed his petition for dissolution), as the date of dissolution. In any event, the marriage was dissolved when the court issued its decree on December 26, 2002. Therefore, the parties were married 30 months.

While Husband concedes this point, he argues that the increase of 8 months should also be reflected in the amount of time that he occupied the property. We agree. The court incorrectly found that 54 months elapsed between the date of purchase and the date of dissolution. The record reflects that Husband purchased the property on June 15, 1998, while the marriage was dissolved on December 26, 2002. The correct figure, therefore, is 62 months.

The trial court erred in using 22 months as the duration of the marriage and 54 months as the amount of time in which Husband occupied the property. Instead, the court should have used 30 months and 62 months respectively. Thus, the court erred in finding that $6,665.00 is the marital component of the home. We remand and direct the court to recalculate this value accordingly and amend the judgment to the degree necessary.

Point II: Stored Grain

In her second point on appeal, Wife argues that the court erred in failing to designate the value of grain from the farming operations conducted by Husband as marital property.

At trial, Wife introduced a hand-written document dated December 2001 that she described in her testimony:

A. This is a document that's been provided by Brenda, Troy's mom. She's the one that kept track of how many bushels of bean[s] or corn[ ] that we had and what we've sold and what we hadn't sold. I mean it's a document that Troy would have brought home for me.

Q. Okay.

A. I mean for our records, to know. I did not keep track of what bushels he had in storage or what he sold.

Q. All right. And this is a breakdown ... I guess what Troy had stored for the 2001 crop; is that your understanding?

A. Yes.

This document showed 35,346 bushels of corn and 11,687 bushels of soybeans that had not yet been sold at that time. Wife testified that upon receiving the list, Husband would not have sold any grain in 2001. Rather, he "would have waited until 2002 to sell it when the prices were better." Wife testified that the fair market value of the corn at the time of trial was $81,649.00, while the fair market value of the soybeans was $65,209.00. According to Wife,...