Sprock v. Sprock, WD
| Decision Date | 14 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 882 S.W.2d 183 |
| Parties | John L. SPROCK, Appellant, v. Kristin V. SPROCK, Respondent. 48473. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James W. Gallaher, Jefferson City, for appellant.
Gary Oxenhandler, Columbia, for respondent.
Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.
Appellant, John L. Sprock, and Respondent, Kristin V. Sprock, were married on June 1, 1991. On August 13, 1992, the parties separated. On August 19, 1993, the Circuit Court of Callaway County entered an order dissolving the marriage and decided the issues of property classification and distribution. Mr. Sprock appeals the trial court's classification and distribution of property.
Mr. Sprock is a farmer. Before the marriage he owned an 841 acre farm in Callaway County. Mrs. Sprock lived and worked in Marshall, Missouri. She sold her home and quit her job shortly before marrying Mr. Sprock. The Sprocks entered into a prenuptial agreement.
After their marriage, the Sprock's kept their funds separate, but, however, they did maintain a jointly owned checking account. Mrs. Sprock maintained her separate account in her name and Karel Vogelsmeier's. Mr. Sprock had a checking account known as the "Sprock Farms" account. After the marriage, Mrs. Sprock was given the power to write checks on the farm account, but ownership remained with Mr. Sprock.
Shortly after the marriage, the Sprock's entered into a contract to purchase a farm located in Audrain County, Missouri. The purchase price of the farm was $220,800. The Sprock's made a $10,000 earnest money deposit. Mrs. Sprock loaned $5000 to Mr. Sprock from her separate funds. Mr. Sprock contributed $5000 from his funds.
The purchase of the Audrain County farm was closed in December, 1991. Mr. Sprock took title to the farm in his name only. He borrowed $144,000 from Farm Credit Services (FCS) to buy the farm. Mr. Sprock signed a note and deed of trust in favor of FCS. Mrs. Sprock also signed the deed of trust, but she did not sign the note. Mrs. Sprock testified that when she signed the deed of trust, she understood that her name was not on the deed to the Audrain County farm.
To purchase the farm, Mr. Sprock borrowed $30,000 of new money from Mrs. Sprock in addition to the $5000 of earnest money she provided. Mr. Sprock gave Mrs. Sprock a $40,000 note in return for the money she provided from her separate funds. 1 Mr. Sprock raised the balance of the purchase price by selling part of his 1991 wheat crop and using an agriculture department set aside payment from his Callaway County farm. The Callaway County farm is listed as Mr. Sprock's premarital asset in the Sprock's prenuptial agreement. The 1991 wheat crop is listed in the prenuptial agreement under the heading "Other", Item 4, "Undetermined Value of 295 acres of wheat crop planted." The prenuptial agreement provides that rents, increase, profits, interest, and dividends on non-marital property shall remain non-marital property.
In July of 1992, Mr. Sprock repaid the $40,000 note in full, with interest. He repaid the note by borrowing $40,000 from his FCS operating line of credit. Mrs. Sprock placed these funds in her separate savings account.
Mr. Sprock made the first principal payment required on the $144,000 FCS note, in April of 1993. He also paid $11,415.20 of interest on the loan. Mr. Sprock raised the FCS payment by liquidating an investment fund. The investment fund was listed in the prenuptial agreement as a premarital asset.
Mr. Sprock raises four points of trial court error. First, he alleges the Audrain County farm should not have been classified as marital property because he acquired the farm in exchange for non-marital assets. Second, in the alternative to Point I, if the Audrain farm is a marital asset, the court failed to make a fair division of the equity in the farm. Third, the crops grown on the Audrain farm were improperly classified as marital property and, finally, the "Sprock Farms" checking account was also improperly classified as marital property.
This court will affirm the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976).
In his first point, Mr. Sprock contends the trial court erred in finding that the Audrain farm was a marital asset because he traced the source of the funds used to purchase the farm to non-marital assets.
Section 452.330.3 RSMo Supp.1993 provides:
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 coownership such as joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entirety, and community property. The presumption of marital property is over- come by a showing that the property was acquired by a method listed in subsection 2 of this section.
Two of the methods to overcome the presumption of martial property are listed in § 452.330.2 RSMo Supp.1993 and include:
. . . . .
(2) Property acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the marriage or in exchange for property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent;
. . . . .
(4) Property excluded by valid written agreement of the parties;
. . . . .
Mr. Sprock contends he overcame the statutory presumption by tracing the source of the funds used to purchase the Audrain County farm to assets owned by him prior to his marriage and excluded by the parties' prenuptial agreement.
To overcome the statutory presumption, the party claiming the property is non-marital must prove that it is non-marital with clear and convincing evidence. Coughlin v. Coughlin, 823 S.W.2d 73, 75 (Mo.App.1991). In this case, Mr. Sprock has the burden of proof to show the property is non-marital by tracing the money used to pay for the Audrain County farm to specific non-marital assets.
Prior to the parties' marriage, they entered into a prenuptial agreement which stated, in part:
It is agreed that neither party shall upon or subsequent to said marriage acquire any interest, right, or claim in or to the property, real or personal, of which the other is now seized, possessed, or entitled to, or of which the other may become seized, possessed, or entitled to hereafter, with the exception, however, of any transfer which the parties hereto may at some time in the future make to themselves, jointly, as tenants by the entirety.
With this language, Mr. and Mrs. Sprock agreed that the property they each owned and the property they may own in the future would be their own separate property. Prenuptial agreements will be upheld and will dispose of issues of property division unless found to be unconscionable. Nedblake v. Nedblake, 682 S.W.2d 852, 854 (Mo.App.1984).
The contract to purchase the farm required an earnest money deposit of $10,000. Mrs. Sprock loaned $5,000 of the earnest money from her separate money and Mr. Sprock contributed $5,000 from his separate funds. Mr. Sprock raised the balance of the money necessary to close the transaction by borrowing an additional $30,000 from Mrs. Sprock, by borrowing $144,000 from FCS, and raising $39,318 by selling part of his 1991 wheat crop and using the "set aside" payment from his Callaway County farm. Mr. Sprock's 1991 wheat crop was listed in the prenuptial agreement as property owned by Mr. Sprock prior to marriage. Mr. Sprock earned the "set aside" payment because he placed part of his Callaway County farm in a government program. The Callaway County farm is listed in the prenuptial agreement as property owned by Mr. Sprock prior to marriage. The prenuptial agreement also provides that profits from premarital property are the parties non-marital property.
When the transaction was closed, Mr. Sprock alone took title to the farm. Mrs. Sprock knew, prior to closing, that Mr. Sprock was going to buy the farm in his name alone. In July 1992, Mr. Sprock paid Mrs. Sprock's $40,000 note in full, plus interest.
Mr. Sprock made the first principal and interest payment required on the $144,000 FCS note, in April, 1993. He raised the funds for the payment by liquidating his Fidelity Investment Fund. According to the prenuptial agreement, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kester v. Kester
...agreements will be upheld and will dispose of issues of property division unless found to be unconscionable." Sprock v. Sprock 882 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Mo.App.1994). We first consider Wife's claim that the trial court erred when it classified as a non-marital asset the total pay-down amount of ......
-
O'Connor v. Miroslaw
...agreements will be upheld and will dispose of issues of property division unless found to be unconscionable.” Sprock v. Sprock, 882 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Mo.App. W.D.1994). This Court “will only interfere with the trial court's division of property if the division is so unduly weighted in favor ......
-
Short v. Short
...status as marital property. McGilley v. McGilley, 951 S.W.2d 632, 637 (Mo.App. W.D.1997). Compare, for example, Sprock v. Sprock, 882 S.W.2d 183, 187 (Mo.App. W.D.1994), where the prenuptial agreement stated in part: “each party acknowledges that the property listed above as belonging to th......
-
Marriage of Ballay, In re
...is marital, a party claiming that it is nonmarital must prove it to be so with clear and convincing evidence. Sprock v. Sprock, 882 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Mo.App.W.D.1994). We will separately address each type of asset which Wife contends should have been declared marital In September, 1994, when......
-
§ 7.05 Using Marital Funds to Pay a Premarital Mortgage or Using Separate Funds to Pay a Mortgage Loan Obtained During Marriage
...Pearson v. Pearson, 363 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. App. 1985). [130] Winn v. Winn, 105 Idaho 811, 673 P.2d 411 (1983).[131] See Sprock v. Sprock, 882 S.W.2d 183 (Mo. App. 1994).[132] Greene v. Greene, 351 S.C. 329, 569 S.E.2d 393 (S.C. App. 2002).[133] See, e.g.: Arizona: Potthoff v. Potthoff, 128 A......