Taylor v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 22 August 2000
• Citation: 25 S.W.3d 634
• Parties: (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) . James Mark Taylor, Respondent, v. Deanna K. Taylor, Appellant WD57447 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date: 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

25 S.W.3d 634 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000)

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

James Mark Taylor, Respondent, v. Deanna K. Taylor, Appellant

WD57447

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

Handdown Date: 08/22/2000

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Pettis County, Hon. Carl D. Gum, Jr., Judge

Counsel for Appellant: Barbara L. Teeple, Tipton

Counsel for Respondent: Karen M. Hunt, Sedalia

Opinion Summary: The husband filed for a dissolution of marriage. The court dissolved the marriage and made a property division. The wife appeals.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

Division One holds: The judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties is reversed and remanded as it relates to the division of property, the valuation of certain personal property, the classification of certain property as marital or non-marital, and the valuation of the marital business. The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Opinion Author: Joseph M. Ellis, Judge

Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. Howard, PJ. and Stith, J., concur.

Opinion:

James Mark Taylor (Husband) and Deanna K. Taylor (Wife) were married on August 24, 1985, in Sedalia, Pettis County, Missouri. The parties first separated on April, 15, 1997, reconciled briefly, and then separated again on August 19, 1997.

During the marriage, Husband and Wife acquired a used car dealership known as Mark's Used Cars and Trucks, doing business under the corporate title of Mark Taylor, Inc. Each owned half of the business. Husband and Wife also acquired the following four parcels of real estate, the first three of which are located in Pettis County: the marital residence and seven acres, 61.66 acres of undeveloped land, a 60,000 square-foot tract of land, and a lake cabin in Camden County, Missouri. Other marital property included farm implements, a boat, trailers, horses, home furnishings, pets, and various items of personal property.

Mr. Taylor filed a dissolution action on August 19, 1997. The couple did not have children. Neither party requested maintenance or attorney's fees. The trial court divided all the marital and non-marital property and ordered the marriage dissolved on June 10, 1999. The court awarded the dealership, all of its assets, and the real estate on which it was located to Husband. He also received the real estate located in Camden County and numerous items of personal property. The court awarded Wife the marital home and the surrounding acreage, a car, and numerous items of personal property. Wife appeals.

Standard of Review

Appellate review of a judgment of dissolution is guided by the standard set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976); therefore, we will affirm the trial court's decision unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Laffey v. Laffey, 4 S.W.3d 655, 657-58 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999). The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error. Taylor v. Taylor, 12 S.W.3d 340, 344 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, disregarding contrary evidence. Laffey, 4 S.W.3d at 658. We give deference to the trial court's decision, even if the evidence could support a contrary conclusion. Id.

I. Property Division

In her first point on appeal, Wife claims the trial court erred in its property division because it failed to value property, undervalued property, failed to include property in its division, or made improper credits, resulting in an inequitable division of the marital assets. We will interfere with the trial court's division of the property only upon a finding that it is "so 'heavily and unduly weighted in favor of one party as to amount to an abuse of discretion.'" Finnical v. Finnical, 992 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999)(quoting Allen v. Allen, 961 S.W.2d 891, 893 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998)). "An abuse of discretion will be found only if the award is so arbitrary or unreasonable that it indicates indifference and lack of proper judicial consideration." Silcox v. Silcox, 6 S.W.3d 899, 905 (Mo. banc 1999) (quoting Sola v. Bidwell, 980 S.W.2d 60, 66 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998)). The trial court's division is presumed correct and the challenging party bears the burden of overcoming this presumption. Laffey, 4 S.W.3d at 659.

A. Overall Fairness

Wife challenges the overall fairness of the trial court's division of property. Section 452.330 applies to the division of marital property in a dissolution proceeding and provides, in pertinent part:

[T]he court shall set apart to each spouse such spouse's nonmarital property and shall divide the marital property and marital debts 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) Custodial arrangements for minor children.

452.330.1. ¹ In this case, factor five need not be considered because the marriage produced no children. The parties also entered a pre-trial stipulation precluding testimony of marital misconduct by either party, except as such conduct related to the marital property or its division.

Wife argues that, despite the trial court's statement that it considered section 452.330's provisions in its division of the property, the court failed to explain the factors upon which it based its division in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. She claims that a review of the record establishes that the relevant factors do not justify such an inequitable division in favor of Husband. The court awarded Wife $264,949.19 (43%) of the marital property, and it awarded Husband $345,208.69 (57%) of the marital property. Wife argues that there is no real indication that the court did in fact consider the factors listed in the statute and if the court had considered the first four factors it would have awarded a greater share of the marital property to her instead of to Husband. She contends, first, that the economic circumstances of the parties should have resulted in an award of a greater share of the marital property to her. Wife notes that Husband's adjusted gross income for 1997 was $74,301.00, the majority of which was derived from the marital business. She also points out that the dealership is the only income-producing asset of the parties, and the court awarded the dealership to Husband. Wife, a licensed practical nurse, received an income of $20,859.00 in 1997. At trial, Wife testified that she earned sufficient money to provide for her own needs and that she did not request maintenance.

Second, Wife claims that no evidence was presented that Husband contributed significantly more to the acquisition of the marital assets than did Wife. The trial court found that the success of Mark's Used Cars and Trucks resulted from Husband's efforts alone, and noted that Wife did not dispute this testimony.

Third, Wife argues that the value of the non-marital property set aside to the parties does not support the trial court's division of the property. The court did not assign values to the non-marital property. Wife contends that there was not a substantial amount of non-marital property set apart to either party, and, therefore, this factor cannot justify the trial court's property division.

And finally, Wife asserts there was evidence of marital misconduct by Husband related to the marital property. Husband testified that he removed marital and personal property from the marital home after the parties separated, including several vehicles owned by the marital business. Wife also claims that Husband secreted income from the marital business by falsifying sales reports filed with the State and by denying that the dealership had receivables secured by liens on automobiles sold.

The trial court in its judgment stated that it had "consider[ed] all of the provisions of [section 452.330] in making its determination of property." Moreover, the court stated it "finds [the] division of property and debt to be fair considering all the circumstances." The trial court possesses great flexibility in its division of marital property. Laffey, 4 S.W.3d at 659. In evaluating the factors set out in section 452.330, there is no specific formula for a court to follow in determining the weight to be given to the various factors. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exclusive. In re Marriage of Baker, 986 S.W.2d 950, 957 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999). The court's division of the property must be fair and equitable given the circumstances of the case, but need not be equal. Silcox, 6 S.W.3d at 904; Laffey, 4 S.W.3d at 659. "That one party is awarded a higher percentage of marital assets does not per se constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion." Laffey, 4 S.W.3d at 659 (emphasis in original). In fact, in Nelson v. Nelson, we noted that appellate courts in this state "routinely affirm highly disproportionate divisions of marital property," and we cited numerous cases for that proposition. Nelson v. Nelson, __ S.W.3d __ (Mo. App. W.D. 2000), 2000 WL 271731 at *3 (No. WD57071, decided March 14, 2000);

The trial court's judgment reveals that the court did consider the relevant factors. The court acknowledged that Wife earns less as a licensed practical nurse than Husband does from the marital business. Moreover, the trial court also expressly stated it did...