Puckett v. Puckett, 44620
| Decision Date | 30 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 44620,44620 |
| Citation | 632 S.W.2d 83 |
| Parties | Bonnie L. PUCKETT, Respondent, v. William B. PUCKETT, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Champ C. Stonebraker, St. Louis, for appellant.
John A. Layton, Cape Girardeau, for respondent.
Husband appeals from a provision of a decree of dissolution requiring him to pay $5,000.00 to wife to equalize the distribution of marital property. We affirm.
Husband was employed as a billing clerk for the Missouri Pacific Railroad and paid approximately $200.00 a month during the course of the marriage into the railroad retirement fund. Wife, during the marriage, went to nursing school and at the time of the hearing, was employed as a nurse. The trial court dissolved the parties' marriage of six years, awarded neither party maintenance, and found there to be marital property with a value of $13,787.99. The trial court awarded husband a portion of the marital property and required him to pay certain marital debts. Wife was awarded the remainder of the marital property and was also required to pay certain marital debts. The net value of the marital property received by husband was significantly greater than that wife received.
Husband had purchased the family home, titled in his name, a year before the parties married, which the trial court set aside to him as his separate property. The trial court expressly found that $7,555.40 of its value was the result of "repairs and improvements made during the marriage" paid for out of a joint account to which both parties contributed funds. It further awarded to husband as marital property the amount that was paid into the railroad retirement fund. 1 Finally, the court found that in order to equalize the division of marital property, husband should pay $5,000.00 to wife.
Husband appeals contending that the trial court erred in finding that the railroad retirement benefits constituted marital property and the order requiring him to pay $5,000.00 to wife constituted an offset to her of railroad retirement benefits contrary to law. In Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 99 S.Ct. 802, 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that California's treatment of railroad retirement benefits as community property, and an order awarding to wife other community property as an offset for her interest in the prospective retirement benefits, impermissibly conflicted with the congressional statutory scheme contained in the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, and the 1977 amendments thereto, 45 U.S.C. §§ 231 et seq. 2 We agree with husband as does wife that based on Hisquierdo the trial court's designation of the railroad retirement benefits as marital property was error.
The primary concern, however, of this court is the correctness of the judgment and not the route by which it is reached. If, based upon the law and the evidence, the judgment can be properly reached upon any reasonable theory, the judgment will be affirmed. Watkins v. Johnson, 606 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Mo.App.1980). Rule 84.13(b) requires that we may not reverse a judgment unless error committed by the trial court materially affects the merits. We are also mindful that the efficacy of a judgment does not reside in any prefatory statement of reason or recital but in the mandate of the decree. Wilhoit v. Wilhoit, 599 S.W.2d 74, 78 (Mo.App.1980). Thus, we are concerned only with the dispositive portions of the decree-whether the award of the retirement benefits or the order requiring husband to pay wife $5,000.00 was supported by substantial evidence, was against the weight of the evidence or constituted an erroneous application of the law. Rule 73.01.
Here, all interest in the retirement benefits was awarded to husband. That cannot therefore constitute a basis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoffmann v. Hoffmann
...of the separate asset. Whitenton v. Whitenton, 659 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Mo.App.1983); Bishop v. Bishop, 658 S.W.2d at 515; Puckett v. Puckett, 632 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Mo.App.1982); Ravenscroft v. Ravenscroft, 585 S.W.2d at 272. In lieu of a lien, the person in whose name the separate property is tit......
-
Marriage of Brane, Matter of
...of Meyer, 103 Ill.App.3d 44, 58 Ill.Dec. 578, 430 N.E.2d 610 (1981); Pongonis v. Pongonis, 606 A.2d 1055 (Me.1992); Puckett v. Puckett, 632 S.W.2d 83 (Mo.App.1982); In re Marriage of Karr, 192 Mont. 388, 628 P.2d 267 (1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 1016, 102 S.Ct. 1709, 72 L.Ed.2d 132 (1982);......
-
Stephens v. Stephens
...property is not necessarily prejudicial error. In re Marriage of Garrett, 654 S.W.2d 313, 316 (Mo.App.1983); Puckett v. Puckett, 632 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Mo.App.1982). This court does not reverse any judgment unless it finds that error was committed by the trial court against the appellant "mater......
-
Marriage of Garrett, In re
...declaration of what is or is not marital property, where the decree is nonetheless fair, will not require a reversal. Puckett v. Puckett, 632 S.W.2d 83 (Mo.App.1982). Viewed in this light, the trial court's division of property was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weig......
-
§ 12.02 Types of Benefits
...See also, Belt v. Belt, 398 N.W.2d 737 (N.D. 1987). Hisquierdo also applies to common law states. See, e.g., Puckett v. Puckett, 632 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. App. 1982). Hisquierdo prompted a dissent, see 439 U.S. at 591, as well as a great deal of negative commentary. See Reppy, "Learning to Live wi......