Murphy v. Murphy, WD
| Decision Date | 16 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 716 S.W.2d 870 |
| Parties | Dorothy MURPHY, Respondent, v. Jimmie Lee MURPHY, Appellant. 37658. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lori J. Levine, Carson, Coil, Riley, McMillin, Levine & Veit, P.C., Jefferson City, for appellant.
David L. Knight, Knight, Ford, Wright, Atwill, Parshall & Baker, Columbia, for respondent.
Before CLARK, C.J. Presiding, and NUGENT and GAITAN, JJ.
The appeal in this case is from a purported judgment ordering retroactive distribution between the husband and wife of a marital asset omitted from distribution under the original dissolution of marriage decree. Appellant-husband contends the judgment was in error because the asset in question, his military pension, was not a marital asset, or if it was, the subject of its disposition was concluded by the previous judgment in the case.
The marriage between these parties was terminated by a dissolution decree entered October 6, 1980. 1 That decree also undertook to divide the parties' assets and awarded child support and maintenance. The next proceedings in the case were recorded on August 15, 1983 when appellant filed a motion to modify the decree in respect to child support and maintenance. Respondent then filed her counter motion requesting increased child support and, in a first amended counter motion to modify, she requested the court to distribute to her a share in appellant's military pension which she contended was marital property omitted from division in the original dissolution decree.
By judgment entered October 18, 1984, the court ruled the motions sustaining appellant's request that child support be terminated and overruling his request to decrease the amount awarded for maintenance. The court also denied respondent's motion for distribution of the military pension noting that a motion to modify is not the proper procedure for seeking distribution of omitted marital property.
The legal file next records a "Motion To Distribute Marital Asset" filed in this same dissolution of marriage case on November 26, 1984. In the motion respondent sought the same relief asserted in the earlier motion, that is, distribution to her of a share of appellant's military pension retroactive to October 7, 1980. Despite a motion by appellant asserting that no cause of action was thereby stated and despite the court's earlier declaration that a motion filed in the dissolution case was not jurisdictionally appropriate to raise issues regarding assets omitted from distribution under the dissolution decree, the court inexplicably heard the cause on the merits and issued the judgment from which this appeal is taken.
We note that appellant does not raise the issue of jurisdiction in the trial court to enter the judgment in question although the same issue was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clifton v. Clifton
...82, 545 N.E.2d 1314, 1316-17 (1988) (No division was allowed because separation agreement did not award benefits.); Murphy v. Murphy, 716 S.W.2d 870-71 (Mo.Ct.App.1986) (Trial court was without jurisdiction to modify property distribution.); Marriage of Yates, 365 N.W.2d 49, 51 (Iowa Ct.App......
-
Murphy v. Murphy
...which was based upon respondent's motion to modify, was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court and was voided. Murphy v. Murphy, 716 S.W.2d 870 (Mo.App.1986). On September 24, 1986, respondent filed an action in equity in the Circuit Court of Callaway County to divide the undistributed ......
-
Karney v. Wohl
...remedy is to institute a separate suit in equity to determine the nature of the property and its proper allocation. Murphy v. Murphy, 716 S.W.2d 870, 871 (Mo.App.1986); Gehm v. Gehm, 707 S.W.2d 491, 495 (Mo.App.1986). Where, as here, the record discloses that the dissolution court itself ne......
-
Chrun v. Chrun
...determine the nature of the property in its proper allocation. State ex rel. McClintock v. Black.... 707 S.W.2d at 495. Murphy v. Murphy, 716 S.W.2d 870 (Mo. App. 1986), also from the Western District, follows Faced squarely with a conflict between the districts of our Court of Appeals, we ......