Petty v. Petty, 52442

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CRANDALL; SIMON, P.J., and GRIMM
• Citation: Petty v. Petty, 739 S.W.2d 738 (Mo. App. 1987)
• Decision Date: 03 November 1987
• Docket Number: No. 52442,52442
• Parties: Donald G. PETTY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nina J. PETTY, Respondent-Respondent.

Page 738

739 S.W.2d 738

Donald G. PETTY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nina J. PETTY, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 52442.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Four.

Nov. 3, 1987.

Martin Mazzei, Steelville, for petitioner-appellant.

John B. Berkemeyer, Hermann, for respondent-respondent.

CRANDALL, Judge.

Husband, Donald G. Petty, appeals from the decree of dissolution of marriage from wife, Nina J. Petty. We affirm.

Husband and wife were married in March 1956 and separated in July 1985. Three children were born of the marriage, but all were emancipated at the time of dissolution.

During the marriage, husband was employed first as a banker and then as an insurance salesman. His yearly salary and commissions as an insurance salesman were $30,000 to $35,000. He owned 16 percent of the stock in the insurance company for which he worked. He also was one-half owner of a farm in Jasper County. Generally, husband was away from home during the week and home only on weekends.

During the marriage, wife remained on the family farm in Gasconade County which husband and wife had purchased from her parents. She worked the farm, primarily raising cattle. She also bred cats for resale. She was a licensed real estate broker and an Avon representative. Although her main job was caring for the three children, she had on occasion been employed outside of the home at jobs for which she was paid minimum wage. With money saved from her endeavors, she and husband had purchased another farm in Maries County known as High Gate. At the time of dissolution, she was earning $200 to $300 per month. She was residing in the family home with the youngest daughter who was a college student and with that daughter's small child.

The trial court issued a decree of dissolution without making specific findings as to the value of the marital assets. The court divided the marital property as shown below. The figures represent each party's estimation of the item's value.

                               TO HUSBAND
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                PROPERTY                            HUSBAND'S ESTIMATED  WIFE'S ESTIMATED
                ----------------------------------  -------------------  ----------------
                                                           VALUE              VALUE
                                                    -------------------  ----------------
                1962 Massey Ferguson 65 Tractor             --*               $  3,000.00
                Jasper County Farm Equipment         $  5,000.00                 3,000.00
                1981 Honda 110 Motorcycle                   --*                    500.00
                Marketing Specialists shares              960.00                13,000.00
                Life Insurance Policies                 1,000.00                 1,000.00
                1983 Chevrolet Pickup                   6,000.00                 7,475.00
                1/2 interest in Jasper County Farm     57,000.00                80,000.00
                Miscellaneous personal property           150.00                 1,500.00
                                                    -------------------  ----------------
                                                     $ 70,610.00              $109,475.00
                DEBTS
                ----------------------------------
                GMAC debt on truck                          --*               $  3,700.00
                Jasper County farm debt                     --*                 39,000.00
                Phelps County Bank debts                    --*                    989.00
                                                                                 8,802.00
                MasterCard debt                                                    700.00
                                                    -------------------  ----------------
                                                     $ 84,000.00              $ 53,191.00
                                                    -------------------  ----------------
                Net Award to Husband                ($ 13,390.00)             $ 56,284.00
                                                 TO WIFE
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                PROPERTY                             HUSBAND'S ESTIMATED  WIFE'S ESTIMATED
                -----------------------------------  -------------------  ----------------
                                                            VALUE              VALUE
                                                     -------------------  ----------------
                High Gate (Maries County Farm)               $ 15,000.00        $12,500.00
                Gasconade County Farm                          84,000.00         49,500.00
                Gasconade County Farm Equipment and
                 Personal Property                              5,100.00          2,600.00
                Life Insurance Policies                         _*                    0.00
                Livestock                                       4,000.00          4,000.00
                1977 Plymouth                                       0.00              0.00
                                                     -------------------  ----------------
                                                             $108,100.00        $68,600.00
                DEBTS
                -----------------------------------
                Debt to Mother                                  _*              $ 2,500.00
                High Gate debt                                    800.00          1,900.00
                Debt to Phelps County Bank                      _*                3,000.00
                                                     -------------------  ----------------
                                                             $    800.00        $ 7,400.00
                                                     -------------------  ----------------
                                                             $107,300.00        $61,200.00
                

*Indicates no specific values assigned by party.

The trial court also ordered husband to pay $4,500 in wife's attorney's fees and $700 per month to wife as maintenance.

In his first point, husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding wife a disproportionate share of the marital property. Husband argues that the property awarded to wife constituted "one hundred percent of the marital property of any value" and indicated that the court did not consider all the marital debts in dividing the property.

In dividing marital property, the trial court is required to make a just division; but it need not make an equal division. Ware v. Ware, 647 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo.App.1983); see also Section 452.330 RSMo (1986). Absent a request by the parties, the trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact as to the value of the items of marital property awarded in the decree. Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865, 868 (Mo. banc 1984); see also Rule 73.01(a)(2). The appellate court can evaluate the trial court's division of the marital property in a meaningful fashion based on the evidence in the record. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d at 868. When there are no detailed findings of fact, the appellate court assumes the facts on appeal as having been found in accordance with the judgment. Walker v. Walker, 631 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Mo.App.1982).

Under wife's figures, she received a net award of approximately 52 percent of the property and husband received about 48 percent. Under husband's figures, wife received a net award of 100 percent of the marital property. We assume that the trial court accepted wife's valuation of the items in an effort to achieve a just division of marital property. If we accept wife's figures, the awards to husband and wife, although unequal, are not so disparate as to amount to an abuse of the trial court's discretion.

The next question is whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the values asserted by wife. The Gasconade County farm and the High Gate property were appraised by independent appraisers at $49,500 and $12,500 respectively. There was evidence to support the valuation of husband's stock in the insurance company at $13,000. The balance sheet of his company was admitted into evidence, showing a profit carryover of $42,630.96 and total assets of $61,316.42. Other valuations by wife were supported either by testimony at trial or by the parties' financial statements. Certainly, there was evidence to the contrary. As trier of fact, the trial court had the prerogative to resolve the conflicts in the evidence. Ware, 647 S.W.2d at 584. We defer to that judgment, even if there is evidence which might support a different result. Id.

Husband contends that the trial court failed to consider the marital debts in dividing the property....