Rudden v. Rudden, 54851
| Decision Date | 28 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 54851,54851 |
| Citation | 765 S.W.2d 719 |
| Parties | William RUDDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judith Ann RUDDEN, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Bruce Nangle, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Joan M. Burger, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
Husband appeals from the marital property disposition and child support award of a dissolution decree. We affirm.
The parties were married in 1969. One child, a boy, was born of the marriage on January 17, 1972. At the time of trial, husband was 40 years old and was employed by the City of St. Louis as a fire captain with a gross annual salary of $35,000. Wife was 37 years old and was earning $1,100 per month in take home pay, or roughly $20,000 in gross annual wages. Husband had a pension plan which would distribute his contributions to the plan in a lump sum plus pay a monthly benefit of 40% of his average monthly salary for the last three years prior to retirement if he retired after 20 years of employment; 70% if he retired after 30 years. If he resigned before 20 years he would receive his contributions plus interest in a single payment. Wife's expert valued the pension at $154,267; husband was within months of being employed 20 years. Wife had custody of the child.
The parties orally stipulated as to every issue except distribution of the marital property. Each waived maintenance and agreed to $350 per month for child support. In its decree, the court ordered husband to pay child support in the amount of $435 per month, found husband's pension plan to be marital property and awarded the pension plan benefits to husband except for 1/2 of the monthly payments husband would be entitled to if he resigned on December 28, 1987; wife is to receive that portion as husband receives his monthly payments or their equivalent. The decree was entered after husband had been employed 20 years. 1
Husband's principal point on appeal is that the court "erred in failing to consider [wife's] social security expectations when awarding a portion of [husband's] pension plan to her in light of [husband's] lack of social security expectations" and should have "set off to [husband], if necessary, as additional marital property, the social security entitlements [wife] had acquired by her attainment of maximum quarters of eligibility for social security during the time of the marriage."
Husband cites no authority for his claim that social security benefits are marital property and can be used as a setoff in the same fashion as vested pension plans. We find no cases in Missouri discussing the issue of whether vested social security benefits fall within the ambit of Kuchta v. Kuchta, 636 S.W.2d 663 (Mo. banc 1982). In Puckett v. Puckett, 632 S.W.2d 83 (Mo.App.1982), we considered the issue of railroad retirement benefits, which are closely related to social security benefits, and determined that these benefits are not marital property. We have reviewed decisions from other jurisdictions. We found none holding that social security benefits are marital property when the issue was squarely addressed. See Hillerman v. Hillerman, 109 Cal.App.3d 334, 167 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1980); Umber v. Umber, 591 P.2d 299 (Okla.1979); Swan and Swan, 301 Or. 167, 720 P.2d 747 (1986). While social security benefits do not fall within our state law definitions of marital or separate property (now marital or nonmarital property, § 452.330.1, RSMo Supp.1988), they are clearly defined by federal statutes. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 301-1397e (1982 and Supp. IV 1986) (particularly §§ 402 and 1382(b))....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. Olson
...of property, from the prohibition against using legal process on social security. 42 U.S.C. § 659(a) and 662(c). In Rudden v. Rudden, 765 S.W.2d 719 (Mo.App.1989), the trial court awarded a divorced wife part of her husband's future firemen's retirement benefits. On appeal the husband claim......
-
Mistler v. Mistler
...security benefits or potential benefits are economic factors to be considered in the disposition of marital property, Rudden v. Rudden, 765 S.W.2d 719, 720 (Mo.App.1989), the record refutes the wife's argument. When the husband objected to the wife's attempt to adduce evidence of the "prese......
-
Webster v. Webster
...of Brane, supra; Bradbury v. Bradbury, 893 A.2d 607 (Me.2006); Mahoney v. Mahoney, 425 Mass. 441, 681 N.E.2d 852 (1997); Rudden v. Rudden, 765 S.W.2d 719 (Mo.App.1989); Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275, 791 N.E.2d 434 The court in Marriage of Zahm, 138 Wash.2d 213, 978 P.2d 498 (1999),......
-
In re Marriage of Crook
...court properly considered potential Social Security benefits when awarding portion of future government pension); Rudden v. Rudden, 765 S.W.2d 719 (Mo.App.1989) (while unassignable as marital or separate property, current or potential Social Security benefits are economic factors to be cons......
-
§ 12.02 Types of Benefits
...N.W.2d 633 (Minn. App. 1984) (consider when awarding alimony). Missouri: Litz v. Litz, 288 S.W.3d 753 (Mo. App. 2009); Rudden v. Rudden, 765 S.W.2d 719 (Mo. App. 1989) (consider for property division and alimony). Montana: Smith v. Smith, N. 13.1 supra. Nebraska: Dinges v. Dinges, 16 Neb. A......