Smith v. Smith, 47500
| Decision Date | 09 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 47500,47500 |
| Citation | 682 S.W.2d 834 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of Joann SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wayman SMITH, III, Respondent-Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Steve Vossmeyer, Susan Spiegel, Newburger & Vossmeyer, St. Louis, for petitioner-appellant.
David B. Lacks, Alisse C. Camazine, Clayton, for respondent-cross-appellant.
Husband and wife both appeal from the decree dissolving their 18-year marriage. The marital property was divided approximately one-half to each party. General custody of the parties' 16 year old daughter was granted to husband with wife to have temporary custody about one-half of the time. Wife was awarded $300.00 per month child support because of the time daughter would spend with her, and $2,000.00 per month as maintenance. Wife was not represented by her present counsel in the trial of this matter. We modify and affirm as modified.
Both parties attack facets of the division of property, the custody arrangement, and the maintenance award, husband claiming excessiveness and wife claiming inadequacy. Husband also attacks the award of child support. With reference to the claimed errors in the child custody and support arrangements, and the award of maintenance, the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion with reference thereto would have no precedential value. We affirm in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Husband states the trial court erred in dividing the marital property in (1) not allocating marital debts; (2) awarding wife one-half of several stock options received as employment benefits because some of the stock options were not vested, and therefore not marital property; (3) not severing the stock options; and (4) giving wife more than her fair share of the marital property.
Wife states the trial court erred in dividing the marital property in (1) not severing the stock options; (2) dividing marital property when there was no evidence of the value of such property; (3) failing to divide all marital property on which there was evidence; and (4) giving husband more than his fair share of the marital property.
We find each party received a fair and considered portion of the marital property. There was no error in failing to divide the debts. Flach v. Flach, 645 S.W.2d 718, 720-21 (Mo.App.1982).
Wife asserts the trial court failed to have sufficient evidence to value a KEOGH Plan and an Anheuser-Busch Investment Credit Stock Ownership Plan which were awarded to husband. The trial courts are bombarded with dissolution cases which, by statute, requires division of the property. Section 452.330 RSMo.1978. The trial judge is often at the mercy of the lawyers. The trial judge cannot introduce evidence, yet he or she has a duty to make a fair division of the property. He or she must rely on the discovery and introduction of evidence by the parties' lawyers regarding the existence and value of property. Aside from default cases, the parties have at least an equal burden to carry on the matter of evidence of value in a dissolution. A complainant should not be rewarded for presenting insufficient evidence of property values.
Wife made no specific reference to the lack of evidence of value of either the KEOGH Plan or the Investment Credit Stock Plan in her motion for new trial. She has not shown why she did not present more evidence as to their value, nor does she show that husband failed to present evidence on the question. Husband listed the KEOGH Plan on his statement of property, and at trial fixed its value at $46,000 to $50,000. Wife did not seriously challenge these figures, nor did she introduce other evidence on the point. If wife wanted more specific or different value figures, she should have presented evidence to establish them. See Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865 (Mo. banc 1984).
With reference to the investment credit stock ownership plan, wife introduced evidence of the number of shares of stock held in the plan in husband's name, the price of the stock, and other details of the plan. Wife cannot complain the trial court erred because her evidence was insufficient to value and award the plan. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 585 S.W.2d 567, 568, 570 (Mo.App.1979).
Wife claims the trial court erred by failing to dispose of a parcel of real property. She listed in her statement of property real estate on Aldine Avenue, purchase price and value unknown. There was no evidence presented of any interest of the parties in this property. Wife, both at trial and in her brief, disclaims any knowledge of any interest the parties may have had in this real estate. Since there was no evidence as to any interest the parties may have in this property the court committed no error in not distributing it. If the parties become aware of any interest in this property, then they may bring an action to dispose of the same. Ploch v. Ploch, 635 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Mo.App.1982).
Both parties agreed there were some stocks in evidence not disposed of. The trial court awarded stock valued at $2,600 to wife. Husband testified he owned assorted stock worth between $4,000 and $6,000. The record shows the remainder of this stock should have been distributed to husband. We amend the decree to so award this stock to husband.
Finally, both parties assert the trial court erred in failing to sever the interests of the parties in husband's stock option plans. Husband was involved in two stock option plans: The Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 1981 Incentive Option Plan, and the Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 1981 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan. The plans consisted of the following options:
Currently Exercisable Options
-----------------------------------
Market
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marina Bornemann v. Bornemann
...plans granted during a marriage are wholly marital property. See Green v. Green, 64 Md. App. 122, 494 A.2d 721 (1985); Smith v. Smith, 682 S.W.2d 834 (Mo. App. 1984); Chen v. Chen, 142 Wis. 2d 7, 416 N.W.2d 661 (App. 1987). We are persuaded that the majority approach that apportions unveste......
-
Marriage of Frederick, In re
...the right to decide to exercise the options. The wife was to be given 30 days notice and had to pay for her portion. (Smith v. Smith (Mo.App.1984), 682 S.W.2d 834.) In Green v. Green (1985), 64 Md.App. 122, 494 A.2d 721, the court found that the husband could not be compelled to exercise hi......
-
MacAleer v. MacAleer
...unvested military pension benefits constitute a marital asset and on conclusion reached by majority of jurisdictions); Smith v. Smith, 682 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Mo.App.1984) (stating that stock options are earned when granted). Conversely, others have concluded that despite the purpose for which......
-
Hann v. Hann, 43A04-9503-CV-77
...In re Marriage of Hug (1984), 154 Cal.App.3d 780, 201 Cal.Rptr. 676; Green v. Green (1985), 64 Md.App. 122, 494 A.2d 721; Smith v. Smith (1984), Mo.App., 682 S.W.2d 834; Callahan v. Callahan (1976), 142 N.J.Super. 325, 361 A.2d 561; In re Marriage of Moody (1983), 119 Ill.App.3d 1043, 75 Il......
-
§ 7.11 Employee Stock Options
...services. Golden v. Cooper-Ellis, 181 Vt. 359, 924 A.2d 19 (2007), may also support this view.[803] See, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 682 S.W.2d 834 (Mo. App. 1984). See also, Duty v. Duty, 162 P.3d 939 (Okla. App. 2007).[804] Id. This result was also approved in Chen v. Chen, 142 Wis.2d 7, 416 N.......
-
Stock options in divorce: assets or income?
...1997 WL 414404 (Conn. Super) (21) Murray case (22) Id. (23) In re Hug, 154 Cal.App.3d 780, 201 Cal. Rptr. 676 (1984); Smith v. Smith, 682 S.W. 2d 834 (Mo.App. 1984); Green v. Green, 494 A.2d 721 (Md.App. 1985); Garcia v. Mayer, 122 N.M. 57,920 P. 2d 522 (1996); Stachofsky v. Stachofsky, 90 ......
-
Valuation and Division of Employee Stock Options in Divorce
...41. See Green, supra, note 38 at 729. 42. 457 N.E.2d 1023 (1983). 43. See also In Re Marriage of Frederick, 578 N.E.2d 612 (1991). 44. 682 S.W.2d 834 (Mo.App. 1984). See also DeJesus DeJesus, 687 N.E.2d 1319 (1997), following, In Re Marriage of Miller, supra, note 1; Callahan v. Callahan, 3......