Spidle v. Spidle

• Decision Date: 16 April 1993
• Docket Number: No. 17956,17956
• Citation: 853 S.W.2d 311
• Parties: Alva D. SPIDLE, Respondent, v. Vera Sue SPIDLE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 311

853 S.W.2d 311

Alva D. SPIDLE, Respondent, v.Vera Sue SPIDLE, Appellant.

No. 17956.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Southern District,

Division Two.

April 16, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer

Denied May 10, 1993.

Dan K. Purdy, Osceola, for appellant.

Jeffrey L. Dull, Baker & Dull, Osceola, for respondent.

FLANIGAN, Judge.

This action for dissolution of marriage was instituted in July 1991 by Alva Spidle against his wife Vera Sue Spidle.The parties, who will be referred to by their first names, were married on June 1, 1985, and separated on June 30, 1991.No children were born of the marriage.Vera has two minor children born of a prior marriage.After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered its decree which dissolved the marriage and classified and distributed property.Vera appeals.

The principal matter in dispute is the trial court's classification, as Alva's separate property, of a 30-acre tract of land in St. Clair County where the parties made their home.

Alva and Vera commenced cohabiting in October 1981.On March 1, 1984, Alva entered into a "Contract for Deed" with Randy Mackey and his wife, the owners of the tract.The total purchase price was $13,500.Alva made an initial down payment of $800 when the contract was executed, and made monthly payments of $150 until December 30, 1984, when other real estate owned by Alva was sold.Alva applied the proceeds of that sale to the balance due on the contract for deed.On January 17, 1985, several months prior to the marriage, the Mackeys executed a warranty deed in which the grantees were "Alva D. Spidle and Vera Sue Spidle, husband and wife."Vera admitted that she had not put any "cash money" into the 30-acre tract.

Before the marriage, Alva commenced construction of a house on the tract.The trial court awarded the 30-acre tract and the improvements to Alva.The trial court's judgment included the following:

The Court finds that while [Vera's] name appears on the deed to this real estate that it was not placed thereon either by or at the direction of [Alva], but rather at the instance of the scrivener, whomever in fact that may have been.[Alva] has by his evidence established that he intended to make no gift to [Vera], which evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption that this real estate is marital property.However, marital funds were to some degree applied to the construction of the residence.This residence is valued by the Court at $7,500.00 apart from the land; testimony indicated that it was 85% complete at the time of marriage.The Court finds that 15% of the residence value, or $1,125.00, is traceable to marital funds.The balance of the residence value and the land and outbuildings trace directly to the nonmarital assets of [Alva].The Court therefore enters judgment against [Alva] and in favor of [Vera] in the sum of One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-five Dollars ($1,125.00), representing 100% of the marital contribution.

Vera contends that the trial court erred in classifying the 30-acre tract as the separate property of Alva for the reason that it was marital property.Vera also contends that the trial court erroneously classified, as the separate property of Alva, a 1972 Ford truck and a Troy-Bilt tiller.She claims that those two items were also marital property.She contends that these misclassifications resulted in an unfair distribution of marital property.

Vera does not argue that she and Alva, prior to the marriage, each had an undivided one-half interest in the 30-acre tract which should have been classified as the separate property of each.She argues that the tract is marital property.Evidence of the value of the 30-acre tract, together with improvements, varied from a low of $15,250 (Vera's evidence), to a high of $20,000 (Alva's evidence).The trial court made no express finding with regard to the value of the tract with improvements.

The trial court made the following property classification and distribution:

                 ALVA:                                         VERA
                                               Separate Property
                30"acre tract                  [$15,250          to  None                     0
                                                           $20,000]
                1972 Ford truck                     300
                Troy"Bilt tiller                    400
                Misc. equipment                   4,235
                                              ---------------------
                                           k    $20,185  to $24,935
                                               Marital Property
                Misc. equipment            k    $10,675              Misc. household  k  $5,435
                                                                       goods
                                                 Marital Debts
                To be paid by Alva         -   9,765.96              To be paid by    -     573
                                                                       Vera
                Judgment in favor of Vera  -   1,125.00              Judgment in      k   1,125
                                                                       favor of Vera
                                              ---------------------                      ------
                           Net             k  19,969.04  to $24,71-        Net        k   5,987
                                                               9.04
                

Section 452.330¹ reads, in pertinent part:

1.In a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage ... the court shall set apart to each spouse his nonmarital property and shall divide the marital property in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors including:

(1) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the spouse having custody of any children;

(2) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property, including the contribution of a spouse as homemaker;

(3) The value of the nonmarital property set apart to each spouse;

(4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage; and

(5) ...

2.For purposes of sections 452.300 to 452.415 only, "marital property" means all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage except:

(1) ...

(2) Property acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the marriage or in exchange for property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent;

(3) ...

(4) ...

(5) The increase in value of property acquired prior to the marriage or pursuant to subdivisions (1) to (4) of this subsection, unless marital assets including labor, have contributed to such increases and then only to the extent of such contributions.

3.All 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 such as joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entirety, and community property.The presumption of marital property is overcome by a showing that the property was acquired by a method listed in subsection 2 of this section.

4.Property which would otherwise be nonmarital property shall not become marital property solely because it may have become commingled with marital property.

The initial inquiry is whether the trial court ruled properly in classifying the 30-acre tract as Alva's separate property and in classifying the residence situated on that tract as Alva's separate property except for 15 percent of the value of the residence, the portion of it completed after the marriage, which was classified as marital property.

Title to the tract was conveyed to Alva and Vera, who were described in the deed as husband and wife.Alva and Vera had not yet married.In Anderson v. Stacker, 317 S.W.2d 417(Mo.1958), such a deed, where the parties never married, was held to create a tenancy in common in the grantees.See, generally, 9 A.L.R.4th 1189, (Estate Created--Deed to Unmarried Persons).Other Missouri cases, involving a similar deed where the grantees never married, are in accord.Richardson v. Kuhlmyer, 250 S.W.2d 355(Mo.1952);Bass v. Rounds, 811 S.W.2d 775(Mo.App.1991);Montgomery v. Roberts, 714 S.W.2d 234(Mo.App.1986);Brooks v. Kunz, 637 S.W.2d 135(Mo.App.1982);In re Estate of Kranitz, 610 S.W.2d 300(Mo.App.1980);Brooks v. Kunz, 597 S.W.2d 183(Mo.App.1980);Atkinson v. Dasher, 588 S.W.2d 215(Mo.App.1979);Keller v. Porchey, 560 S.W.2d 257(Mo.App.1977).In that situation, those cases hold that in a partition action or similar proceeding involving a division of the property interests of the grantees, the division is based on the respective contribution of each grantee to the purchase price and any improvements.The Missouri rule has been criticized.Estate of Wilson, 740 S.W.2d 694, 697(Mo.App.1987);Kranitz, 610 S.W.2d at 303;Brooks v. Kunz, 597 S.W.2d at 187.

Here the parties did marry after they jointly obtained title to the land.Alva's pleading made no request for reformation of the deed."[T]he burden is upon those seeking reformation of a deed to show by clear and convincing evidence that it did not express the true agreement of the parties by reason of their mutual mistake."State v. DeMarco, 422 S.W.2d 644, 648(Mo.1968).

Although Alva argued in the trial court that Vera's name appeared on the deed because of a mistake of the scrivener, and the trial court so found, this court does not agree with that finding.Vera testified that when the deed was prepared at the office of grantor Randy Mackey, who is a realtor, Mackey asked Alva how the grantees should be designated on the deed, and Alva replied, "Alva Spidle and Vera Spidle."Mackey testified that he would not have put Vera's name on the deed "without the okay" of Alva, and that Alva was the one who would have told him "to put Vera's name on there as his wife."Alva's testimony was that he did not recall any of the transaction.Asked...