Shelton v. Shelton
| Decision Date | 24 October 2000 |
| Citation | 29 S.W.3d 400 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) Melissa Shelton, Respondent, v. Donald Shelton, Appellant. ED76914 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Michael David Burton
Opinion Summary: Donald Shelton (Husband) appeals from a trial court Judgment/Decree of Dissolution alleging trial court error in the classification of certain property as marital, in the award of maintenance, and in ordering Husband to pay Melissa Shelton (Wife) retroactive child support.
Division Four holds: (1) Husband did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the Premier Manufacturing stock was acquired by gift, and therefore the trial court did not err in classifying the stock as marital property. (2) The record is insufficient to determine whether or not Wife has met her burden of demonstrating need in order for her to receive maintenance. (3) Although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding retroactive child support, the judgment did not specify whether a $700 credit for Husband's payments to Wife during the separation period was applied to the $2,500 retroactive child support award, and therefore the case is remanded for a determination of whether or not the retroactive child support award reflects the credit to which Husband is entitled.
Donald Shelton ("Husband") appeals from a trial court Judgment/Decree of Dissolution alleging trial court error in the classification of certain property as marital, in the award of maintenance, and in ordering Husband to pay Melissa Shelton ("Wife") retroactive child support. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part with directions.
Husband and Wife married in August 1991. In July 1998, Wife filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Husband and Wife have one child together.
In July 1999, after a hearing on the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in its Judgment/Decree of Dissolution. Among the court's findings, the court determined 1,538 shares of Premier Manufacturing1 stock to be marital property. The court did not hear sufficient nor credible testimony to determine the value of the stock.
The trial court set aside to Wife as her separate, non-marital property the following: (1) Fox School District Pension Plan; (2) Northern Life Insurance Company Mutual Funds; (3) two wedding rings; and (4) old jewelry. Additionally, the trial court awarded to Wife the following marital property: (1) real estate at 2496 Worthington; (2) 1997 Pontiac Grand Prix; and (3) household goods in her possession. The court also ordered Husband to pay Wife $200 per month for maintenance, subject to modification.
The trial court set aside to Husband as his separate, non-marital property the following: (1) 1997 Gill Model 1860 S.D. aluminum boat; (2) guns; and (3) bedroom set from grandmother. Additionally, the trial court awarded to Husband the following marital property: (1) Premier Manufacturing stock; (2) two trailers; (3) 1998 Federal and State income tax refunds; and (4) household goods in his possession.
In arriving at the division of marital property, the trial court took into consideration "the conduct of the parties during the marriage, the economic circumstances of each of the parties, and the custodial arrangements for the minor child." The court also "intended to set off the marital property into approximately equal shares, given the nature of the assets of the parties and taking into consideration the award of Wife's attorney fees and expenses as against Husband and given Husband credit therefor."
The trial court awarded Wife sole legal and primary physical custody and control of the child and ordered Husband to pay Wife $633 per month for child support. The court also ordered Husband to pay Wife $2,500 for retroactive child support.
Additionally, the trial court awarded Wife $3,000 for attorney's fees. The trial court denied Husband's Motion for New Trial or in the alternative To Amend and Correct the Judgment.
The standard for reviewing a decree of dissolution is the same for reviewing any court-tried action. Bullard v. Bullard, 929 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Mo.App. E.D. 1996). The decree must be affirmed unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Additionally, we will defer to the trial court's determinations as to the credibility of witnesses. Bullard, 929 S.W.2d at 944.
In his point one on appeal, Husband argues that the trial court erred in determining the Premier Manufacturing stock to be marital property because there was substantial evidence to show it was a gift to Husband from his father, making it Husband's separate property. Husband claims that this alleged misclassification of the stock resulted in an inequitable distribution of the marital property.
Section 452.330.22 provides in relevant part that "'marital property' means all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage except:
(1) Property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent;...."
Further, "[a]ll property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage and prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution of marriage is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually or by the spouses in some form of co-ownership...." Section 452.330.3. The presumption of marital property may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that the property was acquired by gift. Endebrock v. Endebrock, 916 S.W.2d 456, 458 (Mo.App. E.D. 1996).
Husband acquired the Premier Manufacturing stock subsequent to the marriage and prior to the dissolution of the marriage.3 Thus, the stock is presumed to be marital property unless Husband showed by clear and convincing evidence that the stock was acquired by gift. Husband testified that the stock was a gift that he accepted from his father, although Husband had no documentation indicating that the stock was a gift or that gift tax was paid on the stock. Husband's father testified that he intended to give the stock to Husband, and not to Wife, as a gift. However, Husband's father also produced no documentation indicating that the stock was a gift or that gift tax was paid on the stock. Wife testified that, based on a conversation with Husband, she believed the stock was given to Husband as compensation for unreimbursed business expenses and as retirement security. Where conflicting evidence exists, deference is given to the trial court which can assess the credibility of the witnesses. Endebrock, 916 S.W.2d at 458. Additionally, the trial court possesses broad discretion in identifying marital property. Kahn v. Kahn, 839 S.W.2d 327, 333 (Mo.App. E.D. 1992). Thus, Husband did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the stock was acquired by gift.4
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in classifying the Premier Manufacturing stock as marital property. Husband's point one on appeal is denied.
In his point two on appeal, Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding maintenance to Wife because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Wife was unable to support herself through employment and to provide for her reasonable needs. Husband claims that Wife's income and the amount of child support awarded her exceed the sum of her reasonable needs and that Wife's limited testimony requesting maintenance proved she would be able to support herself and the child without maintenance. Husband further claims that Wife admitted she could support herself through appropriate employment.
An award of maintenance is a matter resting within the sole discretion of the trial court. Friedman v. Friedman, 965 S.W.2d 319, 324 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998). Our review of such an award is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id. Judicial discretion is abused when the court's judgment is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock one's sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful consideration. Hileman v. Hileman, 909 S.W.2d 675, 679 (Mo.App. E.D. 1995). We will not interfere with the trial court's award of maintenance unless the amount of maintenance is patently unwarranted or is wholly beyond the means of the spouse ordered to pay. Halupa v. Halupa, 943 S.W.2d 272, 277 (Mo.App. E.D. 1997). The party challenging an award of maintenance has the burden of showing the trial court abused its discretion in giving the award. Bullard, 929 S.W.2d at 944.
In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, a court may grant a maintenance order to either spouse, but only if it finds that the spouse seeking maintenance: (1) lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to him or her, to provide for his or her reasonable needs; and (2) is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment or is the custodian of a child whose condition or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the home. Section 452.335.1. Under this section, a spouse must demonstrate need before a court can order maintenance. Chen v. Li, 986 S.W.2d 927, 934 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999). Further, the purpose of maintenance is to assist a spouse who is unable to be self-supporting through appropriate employment. Creech v. Creech, 992 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999). A divorcing spouse has an affirmative duty to seek appropriate full-time employment after dissolution. Bullard, 929 S.W.2d at 944.
The trial court attached a Civil Procedure Form 14 to its judgment, in which it found...
To continue reading
Request your trial