Penn v. Penn
| Decision Date | 31 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | Dorothy Jean PENN, Respondent, v. Gene Arthur PENN, Appellant. 33893. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Kimberly Loving, St. Joseph, for appellant.
Grace S. Day, St. Joseph, for respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, C.J., and SHANGLER and MANFORD, JJ.
In this dissolution proceeding the court found the marriage was irretrievably broken, dissolved the relationship, awarded custody of the child Dean to the mother ordered payment of $70 per week for the son, set apart separate property to the husband, and made a division of the marital assets and assigned values.
The evidence was, and the court found, that prior to separation, certificates of deposit in the sum of $94,000 [with accrued interest of $11,000] and a savings account of $7,400 were held in the joint names of the husband and son--but were actually assets of the marriage. Within months of the separation, the husband--an over-the-road truck driver--used these funds to purchase the Alfarm Trucklines corporation as sole owner. The cost of these assets was some $80,000 and the balance of the funds went into the operation of the new business. Alfarm grossed $440,000 during its year 1981 operation, yielded $40,000 in taxable income, but the net proceeds were used to pay indebtedness on trailers, and the business simply was not profitable. At the time of the dissolution proceedings in May of 1982, the husband surmised, the business was worth no more than $30,000. The corporation by then owned accounts receivable of about $61,000 and owed a contingent liability of $34,000 to the Teamsters Pension Fund. There was $5,747 in the corporation bank balance.
The court found that the husband physically abused the wife and was guilty of other misconduct--that he kept a paramour and secured her financial obligation. The court noted that the husband misrepresented certain material evidence at the proceeding, and so was disinclined to believe his narratives. The court concluded that at the very least the husband had squandered the marital estate by unwise investment.
The court set over to the wife from the marital property the residence [assigned value--$45,000], an automobile [$500], household and personal effects [$2,000], and--other than for trifles--a Chevrolet Titan diesel tractor [$12,000]--among other items. The husband was ordered to pay the wife an additional sum of $3,695.50. The value of the division to the wife, by this schedule, was about $68,000.
The court apportioned to the husband assorted vehicles and domestic tractors [about $10,000], guns, furniture and tools [about $1,500] and the total shares--one hundred--in the Alfarm Trucklines. The court assigned the value of $57,000 to the shares. In addition, the order directed transfer to the husband of the corporation accounts receivable [$61,000] "and all other assets and all liabilities in relation to the Alfarm Trucklines, Inc., including the $34,000 contingent liability with the Teamster's Pension fund, all of which obligations are Ordered to be paid by respondent [husband]." Thus, the court included in the ledger of marital property not only the value of the shares of the corporation already in the name of the husband [assigned value--$57,000], but also the accounts receivable of the corporation [$61,000] and the corporation bank balance of $5,747 as well--and assigned to each a separate value. Thus, the composite value of the property set over to the husband as marital property--as reckoned by the order--was some $135,000--less the $34,000...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SFN Shareholders Grantor Trust v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...may or may not be controlled by the same interests"); Holsclaw, 644 S.W.2d at 355 (sole shareholder cannot ignore corporate entity); Penn, 655 S.W.2d at 632 (sole shareholder owns only shares; title to corporate property remains in corporation). Outside the context of dissolution, the sale ......
-
Comninellis V. Comninellis
...of the spouses is the sole shareholder of that corporation, as long as the corporation is a party to the litigation. Penn v. Penn, 655 S.W.2d 631, 632 (Mo. App. W.D.1983). A judgment or decree may only affect property belonging to parties to an action. V.M. v. L.M., 526 S.W.2d 947, 952 (Mo.......
-
In re Lawson-Adams Enterprises, Inc.
...admitted by consent of the parties. 2. In re Marriage of Ward, 659 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983) (citing Penn v. Penn, 655 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983); In re Marriage of Schulz, 583 S.W.2d 735, 742 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979); V.M. v. L.M.,526 S.W.2d 947, 952 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). 3. P......
-
Mehra v. Mehra
...has no jurisdiction to enter a decree dividing property that is not owned by either spouse. (Citations omitted.) See also Penn v. Penn, 655 S.W.2d 631 (Mo.App.1983); In re Marriage of Schulz, 583 S.W.2d 735, 742 (Mo.App.1979); V.M. v. L.M., 526 S.W.2d 947, 952 (Mo.App.1975). These cases may......