Williams v. Williams

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: GAITAN
• Citation: Williams v. Williams, 716 S.W.2d 13 (Mo. App. 1986)
• Decision Date: 09 September 1986
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Parties: Donald P. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Nicole L. WILLIAMS, Respondent. 37472.

Page 13

716 S.W.2d 13

Donald P. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Nicole L. WILLIAMS, Respondent.

No. WD 37472.

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District.

Sept. 9, 1986.

Lynn K. Ballew, Harrisonvile, for appellant.

Elvin S. Douglas, Jr., Harrisonville, for respondent.

Before NUGENT, P.J., and BERREY and GAITAN, JJ.

GAITAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from an action for dissolution of marriage and division of marital property. Appellant Donald P. Williams alleges the circuit court erred as follows: (1) in finding that appellant had used $10,000 of marital funds to pay a non-marital partnership debt on cattle and the related finding that respondent Nicole L. Williams had a marital interest in appellant's cattle; (2) in its valuation of a Sanyo computer because it was against the weight of the evidence; (3) the trial court's finding that a Cub tractor was marital property; and finally, (4) in finding a Z-28 Camaro automobile was marital property because it was purchased before the marriage and in requiring appellant to reimburse respondent for payments she made on the car during the separation period. We reverse and remand.

Appellant's petition for dissolution was filed on March 6, 1984 and the trial court entered its judgment on October 9, 1984. Appellant's motion for new trial was granted November 8, 1984 and the retrial was heard on February 6 and 7, 1985. The trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered approximately 5 1/2 months later on July 26, 1985.

There is no dispute as to the general background events. Appellant Donald P. Williams and respondent Nicole L. Williams were married on February 18, 1983, and separated one year later on February 20, 1984. The only controverted issue in the dissolution was the division of marital property.

Appellant was an employee of a farming and cattle operation with his father as manager. In addition, both appellant and his father kept some of their own cattle in with their employer's herd and they considered themselves partners in that separate business. Appellant also owned cattle independent of his father and his employer.

Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) establishes the boundaries of this court's review of a court tried case. On appeal, the trial court's judgment is to be upheld unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence or the ruling erroneously declares or applies the law. We find there was no substantial evidence adduced at trial to warrant the $5,000 debt reduction award to respondent.

The following is a summary of the testimony and evidence produced at trial on which the trial court evidently based its decision.

Two financial statements were entered into evidence. Exhibit 9 was dated January 31, 1983, and was signed only by Donnie P. Williams, appellant. On this financial statement he listed as assets thirty-eight cattle with a total value of $22,998.45. There was no change in cattle ownership between the time of this financial statement and the marriage. On January 27, 1984, appellant and his father filled out a joint financial statement listing fifty-six cattle owned between them with an estimated value of $38,200.00.

Appellant's father testified that seven cows, three heifers, eight bulls, two yearling heifers, one steer, and three calves of the cattle appellant listed as his own on respondent's Exhibit 9 were actually his father's.

On the later financial statement, appellant's father claimed as his own: twelve cows, three calves, nine bulls and no steers or heifers.

Apparently, at the time of the marriage appellant and his father were liable on a large note to Archie State Bank in the amount of $10,823. This was secured by cattle apparently owned jointly by appellant and his father. Respondent claims that this debt was retired by appellant by the end of August of 1984 (during the time of the marriage).

From the financial statements and the testimony of appellant's father a table of cattle ownership and values is developed as follows:

January 31, 1983                      (Father)        (Appellant)
                --------------------------------
                             Total                 No.    Value      No.    Value
                --------------------------------  ----  ----------  ----  ----------
                11 cows @ $900 = $9,900            (7)   $6,300.00   (4)   $3,600.00
                6 heifers @ $600 = $3,600          (3)    1,800.00   (3)    1,800.00
                4 heifers (1 yr) @ $400 = $1,600   (2)      800.00   (2)      800.00
                8 calves @ $200 = $1,600           (3)      600.00   (5)    1,000.00
                8 bulls @ $625 = $5,000            (8)    5,000.00   --       ---
                1 steer @ $350 = $350              (1)      350.00   --       ---
                                                  ----------------------------------
                                                  (24)  $14,850.00  (14)   $7,200.00
                January 27,1984                       (Father)        (Appellant)
                --------------------------------
                             Total                 No.    Value      No.    Value
                --------------------------------  ----  ----------  ----  ----------
                24 cows @ $800 = $19,200          (12)   $9,600.00  (12)    9,600.00
                5 yearlings @ $600 = $3,000         --      ---      (5)    3,000.00
                18 calves @ $300 = $5,400          (3)      900.00  (15)    4,500.00
                9 bulls @ $1,000 = $9,000          (9)    9,000.00   --       ---
                                                  ----------------------------------
                                                  (24)  $19,500.00    32  $17,100.00
                

Thereafter, the court found that the appellant was able to reduce his debts on his cattle by approximately $10,000 during the marriage with money he had obtained during the marriage. The court then stated that respondent's share of that debt reduction was $5,000.00. Appellant testified that $4,730.70 worth of cattle owned by him before the marriage was sold at various times during the marriage and the total amount was applied to a note at the Archie Bank.

In defense of the Court's position the respondent suggests a comparison of appellant's asset values between January 31, 1983 and January 27, 1984 indicates an increase of $9,900.00 which is very close to the $10,000.00 figure found by the court to reflect the marital interest in the cattle.

The court said the debts of the petitioner, in the amount of $10,000.00, were retired during the marriage from the sale of both non-marital and marital cattle. The court then found that a prima facie case of joint ownership by the husband and wife of the disputed cattle was made by the evidence. This court disagrees that a prima facie case was made from this evidence.

The trial court made no clear finding as to how many cattle were purchased during the marriage, how many were sold, what compensation was received, or what the value was of the cattle that were retained. There is no evidence in the record to indicate marital cattle were sold to pay off the non-marital...