Snider v. Snider
| Decision Date | 31 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 570 S.W.2d 770 |
| Parties | Marian J. SNIDER, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Homer K. SNIDER, Respondent-Appellant. 29451. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Cedric Siegfried, Robert J. Wise, James Russell Ford, Independence, for respondent-appellant.
Thomas D. Cochran, Wm. D. Piedimonte, Joe F. Willerth, Independence, for petitioner-respondent.
Before WELBORN, Special Judge, Presiding, PRITCHARD, J., and HIGGINS, Special Judge.
Dissolution of marriage. Question is whether or not trial court erred in awarding wife $124,250 cash plus real property valued at $21,500 as her share of the marital property.
Marian J. Snider, petitioner below and respondent here, was married to Homer K. Snider, appellant, on August 1, 1954. After the marriage, both parties completed their education, Marian receiving a Master's Degree in music education and Homer a Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine. Three children were born to the marriage. The parties separated about October 25, 1975 and the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed January 27, 1976.
At the time of the separation and dissolution Doctor Snider engaged in the practice of Veterinary Medicine at Hamilton, Missouri. The exact course of his professional career does not appear. Mrs. Snider had been a housewife during the marriage except for four years between 1968 and 1971 when she was also employed as a teacher.
Doctor Snider had been in the cattle business with his father since 1947. Apparently the operation was conducted for at least some time on the father's farm.
In 1960, the Sniders began acquiring property. A 180-acre tract, known as the "Austin" property was acquired in 1960 for $7,200. Title was taken in the names of Keith and Marian Snider. In December, 1967, the 124-acre "Jamison" property was acquired for around $175 per acre with Keith Snider as grantee. Five acres off this tract were sold in 1970. In August, 1970, the 90-acre "Pickering" tract was purchased for $31,500.00. In February, 1972, the 280-acre "Farley" place was purchased for $56,000.00.
In December, 1971, Farview Cattle Co., Inc., was incorporated, with Keith and Marian, along with Keith's parents, Homer and Ava Snider, as incorporators. Homer and Ava transferred 192 acres of land, plus a 1/2 interest in an 80-acre tract and their interest in the cattle operation to the corporation in exchange for stock in the corporation. They also transferred $15,000 in cash. Marian and Keith transferred the Austin, Jamison, Pickering and Farley places to the corporation, along with Keith's interest in the cattle operation.
Just what stock was issued in these exchanges was not wholly clear. The attorney who handled the incorporation produced at the trial what purported to be the original stock record book of the corporation, showing that on December 1, 1971, 25 shares of stock were issued to Homer J. Snider, 25 to Ava Snider, 25 to Keith Snider, three certificates for eight shares each to Keith Snider as trustee for each of his minor children, and one share to the attorney. On February 1, 1972, there was filed with the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of the corporation an "Election by Small Business Corporation," signed by Marian, Keith, Homer and Ava, which recited that 70 shares of stock in the corporation were held by Keith, 50 by Marian and 40 each by Homer and Ava. The first income tax return for the corporation for the year ending January 31, 1973 recited that Keith was the owner of 75 shares of the corporation and Homer 25 shares. The original returns for the years ending January 31, 1974 and 1975 repeated this ownership statement. Sometime in 1975 or early 1976, Keith's attorney advised the accountant that the statements of ownership of the parents as owners of 25 shares each, Keith 26 shares and 24 shares as trustee for his children.
Following its incorporation, Farview Cattle Company, Inc., purchased additional land. In January, 1974, a 120-acre second "Farley" place was purchased for $36,000.00. Title was taken originally in the names of Keith and Marian and transferred immediately to the corporation. In December, 1975, the 225-acre "Ward" property was purchased for $93,000.00. In 1972, Keith and Marian sold a lot in Hamilton to one Brehm. The corporation later purchased the lot upon foreclosure.
The respondent produced testimony of two real estate appraisers as to the value of the various tracts as of May, 1976 as follows:
Appraiser Appraiser
Simmons Shelman
--------- ---------
1. Pickering $ 81,615 $116,000
2. Farley 228,350 186,000
3. Jamison 57,865 62,400
4. Austin 97,150 90,000
5. Ward 130,675 135,000
6. Brehm 5,700 8,500
--------- ---------
Total $601,355 $597,900
These properties were subject to liens totalling approximately $200,000.00.
The appellant's opinion was that the value of the above property (except the Brehm tract) was in the aggregate $319,525.00. He also offered the only evidence as to the value of the land transferred by his parents to the corporation. He stated that his father was offered $150,000 for 152 acres in the 1950's. Another 40-acre tract was estimated to have a current value of $1,200 per acre.
A loan statement, dated December 17, 1975, furnished the First National Bank of Gallatin showed that the value of cattle and hogs then owned by the corporation was $172,900.00. They had been pledged as security for a loan to the corporation of $75,000 ($94,000 at the time of trial) by the bank.
During the marriage, the parties purchased some lots at Lake Viking for $15,600.00. Respondent valued this property at $21,500 at the time of trial. It was then still in the names of the parties as joint owners. The respondent showed a value of $4,236 on household furnishings.
At the dissolution hearing, not a great deal of attention was given appellant's veterinary practice. Income tax returns for 1973 showed a net income of $11,038.53 from veterinary practice.
At the conclusion of a hearing on May 13, 1976, the court announced that it would enter the decree of dissolution. It ordered appellant to pay respondent $350 per month as temporary maintenance and $150 per month for the support of a child. The court stated that the property division would be taken under advisement.
Thereafter, counsel for respondent moved the court to reopen the matter for further testimony as to the value of the real estate. On October 4, 1976, following withdrawal of respondent's original attorney, the matter was reopened and the testimony of respondent's real estate appraisers was presented, along with testimony of respondent.
On December 30, 1976, the trial court entered judgment, making permanent the former arrangement for child custody and support and dividing the marital property. The judgment recites that " * * * except for a certain lot on Lake Viking, essentially all of the marital property was conveyed to Farview Cattle Co., Inc., a Missouri corporation, and the unencumbered value of all of the marital property including the Lake Viking property and that property conveyed to Farview Cattle Co., Inc., is $270,000; * * *." The judgment further recites:
" * * * (A)fter considering all relevant factors, the Court determines that it would be just to equally divide the property between Petitioner and Respondent, but inasmuch as all of the marital property except for the Lake Viking property is now an asset of the Farview Cattle Co., Inc. be divided and that the above-described real property being marital property that has not been disposed of, it would be just that said real property be set apart to the Petitioner as her sole and separate property at a value of $21,500.00,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dardick v. Dardick
...of law" respondent had requested. We find no merit in this contention for the reason given by Judge Welborn in Snider v. Snider, 570 S.W.2d 770 (Mo.App.1978), when confronted with this precise The difficulty with this position is that appellant overlooks the inadequacy, under the existing r......
-
Marriage of Strelow, In re, s. 39557
...a cash award to one party to achieve a just division when the other spouse receives property not divisible in kind. See, Snider v. Snider, 570 S.W.2d 770 (Mo.App.1978); Gross v. Gross, 557 S.W.2d 448 (Mo.App.1977); Claunch v. Claunch, 525 S.W.2d 788 (Mo.App.1975). Instead, the issue they bo......
-
Weiss v. Weiss
...In re Marriage of Burroughs, 691 S.W.2d 470, 473 (Mo.App.1985); Estate of Groves, 684 S.W.2d 925, 929 (Mo.App.1985); Snider v. Snider, 570 S.W.2d 770, 774-75 (Mo.App.1978); and First Florida Building, Inc. v. Safari Systems, Inc., 570 S.W.2d 728, 730 (Mo.App.1978). Regarding the first aspec......
-
Marriage of Burroughs, In re
...for the judge to determine, counsel can assign no error. Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865, 867 (Mo. banc 1984); Snider v. Snider, 570 S.W.2d 770, 774-75 (Mo.App.1978). Michael's second point "The trial court's statements and rulings expressed a prejudicial disposition to grant [Cheryl's] ......
-
§ 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
...(BNA) 1143 (Idaho 1985). For the definition of "marital property state," see § 3.03[3] supra.[491] See, e.g.: Missouri: Snider v. Snider, 570 S.W.2d 770 (Mo. App. 1978). New Jersey: Borodinsky v. Borodinsky, 393 A.2d 583 (N.J. App. 1978). Some statutes expressly authorize such money judgmen......