Stone v. Stone, WD 77156

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtMark D. Pfeiffer, Judge
Docket NumberWD 77156
PartiesDebra Anne Stone, Respondent, v. Randy Alan Stone, Appellant.
Decision Date09 December 2014

450 S.W.3d 817

Debra Anne Stone, Respondent
v.
Randy Alan Stone, Appellant.

WD 77156

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: December 9, 2014


Michael J. Svetlic, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Respondent.

Steven D. Wolcott, Liberty, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Division II: Joseph M. Ellis, Presiding Judge, and James Edward Welsh and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judges

Opinion

Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge

Randy Alan Stone (“Husband”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri (“trial court”), dissolving his marriage to Debra Anne Stone (“Wife”) and dividing the parties' property. In a single point relied on, Husband claims that the trial court erred in several respects. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Husband and Wife married on April 5, 2009. They separated on or about November 20, 2011. There were no children born of the marriage. Prior to the marriage, both Husband and Wife owned their own homes. At some point prior to the marriage, Husband sold his house and moved in with Wife. During the marriage, Husband and Wife purchased two more properties sitting on four adjacent lots. One of the properties Husband uses for his business, and the other is a residence in which Husband now lives.

At trial, Husband testified that the two properties that were purchased during the marriage were purchased with the proceeds of the sale of his non-marital home that he had sold prior to the marriage, but the cashier's check that he brought to the trial showing the down-payment on one of the properties stated that it was “for the benefit of [Husband] and [Wife].”

Husband also testified that he paid half of the expenses while the couple lived in Wife's house before and during the marriage and that he did extensive improvement work on Wife's house that increased its value. However, Husband submitted no evidence of Wife's home's value at the time of the marriage or of any increase in the home's value during the marriage due to his efforts or investments. Furthermore, during the marriage, Husband executed a document called “Acknowledgment of Separate Estate of Spouse and Consent to Execution of Deed of Trust” that disclaimed any interest in Wife's home.

Finally, Husband testified that the motorcycle he purchased during the marriage was purchased with non-marital funds, in that Husband had borrowed against another non-marital vehicle to pay for the motorcycle. Husband provided no documentation supporting his claim.

The trial court found that Wife's home, which she had purchased prior to the marriage, was entirely non-marital property. It found that the two pieces of real property that the couple had purchased during the marriage were marital property, and it

450 S.W.3d 820

awarded those properties, to which it had assessed a value of $52,000, to Husband. It assessed any debt on the properties to Husband and ordered that Wife be held harmless for any such debt. The trial court also awarded Husband the motorcycle he had purchased during the marriage and a trailer that he had purchased during the marriage, and it found that both of these were marital property. After having awarded most of the marital assets to Husband, the trial court ordered an equalization payment from Husband to Wife in the amount of $36,600. Husband appeals.

Standard of Review

As with any court-tried case, the judgment in a dissolution case will be affirmed if it is supported by the evidence; it is not against the weight of the evidence; and it does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Jones v. Jones, 277 S.W.3d 330, 334 (Mo.App.W.D.2009). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the dissolution decree and disregard any contrary evidence or inferences therefrom. Id. We defer to the trial court's credibility determinations. Id. Where the issue on appeal is the trial court's application of section 452.330.11 in dividing marital property, “this court will interfere only where the division is so unduly favorable to one party that it constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 337 (internal quotation omitted). We presume that the division of property was correct; the party challenging it bears the burden of overcoming the presumption. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 159 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo.App.W.D.2005).

Analysis

In a single point on appeal, Husband alleges three distinct errors by the trial court. The argument section of Husband's brief acknowledges this, stating:

[Husband's] point relied on is divided into three separate portions. The first two concern the contributions made by [Husband], during the marriage, to the acquisition of assets through his non-marital funds.... The second portion of [Husband's] contention of error is related to the Court's failure to divide all the marital debts and to deduct the debt incurred by [Husband] from the value of net
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Lollar v. Lollar, No. SC 97984
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 1, 2020
    ...divisions] only where the division is so unduly favorable to one party that it constitutes an abuse of discretion." Stone v. Stone, 450 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Mo. App. 2014). This Court presumes the property division was correct, and the appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption. I......
  • Tribus, LLC v. Greater Metro, Inc., No. ED 107460
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 19, 2019
    ...must appear in separate points relied on in the appellant’s brief to be preserved for appellate review. See Rule 84.04; Stone v. Stone , 450 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (internal quotations omitted) ("A single point relied on that groups multiple, disparate claims is multifarious, ......
  • Herschend v. Herschend, Nos. SD 33116
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 30, 2015
    ...by the evidence; it is not against the weight of the evidence; and it does not erroneously declare or apply the law.Stone v. Stone, 450 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Mo.App.W.D.2014). Dianna challenges that the trial court's method of valuation was an erroneous application of law. The Western District o......
  • Simmons v. McCulloch, No. ED 103304
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 31, 2016
    ...multiple, disparate claims is multifarious, does not comply with Rule 84.04, and generally preserves nothing for review." Stone v. Stone, 450 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Mo.App.W.D. 2014) (quoting Rouse v. Cuvelier, 363 S.W.3d 406, 419 (Mo.App.W.D. 2012) ). While it would be "well within our 501 S.W.3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Lollar v. Lollar, No. SC 97984
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 1, 2020
    ...divisions] only where the division is so unduly favorable to one party that it constitutes an abuse of discretion." Stone v. Stone, 450 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Mo. App. 2014). This Court presumes the property division was correct, and the appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption. I......
  • Tribus, LLC v. Greater Metro, Inc., No. ED 107460
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 19, 2019
    ...must appear in separate points relied on in the appellant’s brief to be preserved for appellate review. See Rule 84.04; Stone v. Stone , 450 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (internal quotations omitted) ("A single point relied on that groups multiple, disparate claims is multifarious, ......
  • Herschend v. Herschend, Nos. SD 33116
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 30, 2015
    ...by the evidence; it is not against the weight of the evidence; and it does not erroneously declare or apply the law.Stone v. Stone, 450 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Mo.App.W.D.2014). Dianna challenges that the trial court's method of valuation was an erroneous application of law. The Western District o......
  • Simmons v. McCulloch, No. ED 103304
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 31, 2016
    ...multiple, disparate claims is multifarious, does not comply with Rule 84.04, and generally preserves nothing for review." Stone v. Stone, 450 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Mo.App.W.D. 2014) (quoting Rouse v. Cuvelier, 363 S.W.3d 406, 419 (Mo.App.W.D. 2012) ). While it would be "well within our 501 S.W.3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT