James Bright v. Janet Bright

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 13, 2014
• Docket: WD76770
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

 JAMES BRIGHT,   WD76770 Respondent,  OPINION FILED: v.   May 13, 2014 JANET BRIGHT,   Appellant.   

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ray County, Missouri The Honorable James Carey Thompson, Judge

Before Division Four: James Edward Welsh, C.J., Lisa White Hardwick, J., and Gerald D. McBeth, Sp. J.

Janet Bright (Wife) appeals the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to James

Bright (Husband). Wife contends that the circuit court erred in awarding Husband "73 percent of

the marital estate" because it failed to correctly apply the factors in section 452.330.1, RSMo

2000, in dividing the marital estate. We disagree and affirm the circuit court's judgment.

The parties married on September 23, 2000. After almost 12 years of marriage, Husband

filed a "Petition for Dissolution of Marriage" on July 3, 2012. Wife filed her answer to

Husband's petition for dissolution on September 13, 2012. The case proceeded to trial on March 14, 2013. The circuit court entered its "Amended Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage"

on July 12, 2013.

In dividing the marital property and marital debts, the circuit court stated that it

considered "all relevant factors as set forth under Section 452.330.1 RSMo., including but not

limited to the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital asset, including the

contribution of either spouse as homemaker." The circuit court said that it also considered "the

increase in value of property acquired prior to the marriage where marital assets, including labor

have contributed to the increase."

The circuit court awarded Husband a house and real property located at 16486 Highway

C in Rayville, Missouri. This property initially was the non-marital property of Husband, but

after the marriage, Husband conveyed the property to Wife and himself as husband and wife.

The circuit court determined that the house and real property had a value of $180,000 at the time

of the marriage, that Husband provided the contribution for the acquisition of the asset, and that

the current value of the property was $230,000. The circuit court also ordered Husband to

assume and pay the outstanding balance of $6,000 debt against the property. Further, the circuit

court awarded Husband the marital share of Husband's cattle breeding and farming business,

which amounted to $6,920.50 in proceeds from the sale of cattle, $64,500 for cattle in the

business's inventory, and $60,500 for farm equipment. The circuit court, however, ordered

Husband to pay outstanding loan balances of $32,089 on the farm equipment. The circuit court

also awarded Husband a whole life insurance policy with a cash surrender value of $13,609.

Husband had purchased the policy on Apri12, 1993. The policy was funded by Husband for

seven years prior to the marriage, and then, after the parties married, the policy was funded by

marital assets for approximately 13 years. The marital portion of the surrender value was

2 $8,846. Finally, the circuit court awarded Husband all of the items of marital property in his

possession except for certain items requested by Wife and awarded Husband a 1997 Ford truck

valued at $3,000, a 1999 Ford F350 truck valued at $3,000, and a 1996 Toyota Corolla valued at

$1,000. The circuit court also stated that Husband owned separate, non-marital property

consisting of a 1991 Crown Victoria and a money market account with a balance of $38,000.

As to Wife, the circuit court awarded her the mobile home and real property located at

12708 Klatt Road in Excelsior Springs, Missouri. This property initially was the non-marital

property of Wife. After the marriage of the parties, Wife conveyed the property to Husband and

herself as husband and wife. The circuit court determined that the mobile home and real

property had a value of $25,000 at the time of the marriage, that Husband provided the

contribution for the acquisition of the asset, and that the current value of the property was

$40,000. Further, the circuit court awarded Wife all of the items of marital property in her

possession, certain household personal effects in Husband's possession valued at $1,535, and a

1997 Toyota 4-Runner valued at $500. The circuit court also awarded Wife one-half of the

marital interest portion of Husband Union Pacific Railroad non-Tier 1 benefits under the

Railroad Retirement Act, ordered that Husband pay modifiable maintenance to Wife in the

amount of $500 a month, ordered Husband to pay $1,500 to Wife for her attorney fees, and

assessed costs against Husband.

Regarding the marital property, the circuit court ordered Husband to pay Wife the sum of

$60,000, "to more fairly and equitably divide and allocate the values of the marital property[.]"

The circuit court said that in reaching this sum, the court considered:

the value of the assets and the amount of the debts set over and allocated to each party, the value of the contribution of each spouse where appropriate to the acquisition of the assets acquired during the marriage, and the contribution of

3 [Wife] both as a homemaker and as the business bookkeeper [for the cattle breeding and farming business].

In her sole point on appeal, Wife contends that the circuit court erred in dividing the

marital estate because it failed to correctly apply the factors in section 452.330.1, RSMo 2000, in

dividing the marital estate. She asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding

Husband "73 percent of the marital estate" and awarding her "27 percent of the marital estate."

We disagree and affirm the circuit court's judgment.

In a dissolution proceeding, we will affirm the circuit court's decision unless it is not

supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously

declares or applies the law. Green v. Green, 341 S.W.3d 893, 894 (Mo. App. 2011). The circuit

court has broad discretion in dividing property in a dissolution action, and we will interfere with

its decision only if the division is so unduly weighted in favor of one party that it amounts to an

abuse of discretion. O'Connor v. Miroslaw, 388 S.W.3d 541, 551 (Mo. App. 2012). We view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling of the circuit court and "find an abuse of

discretion only when the ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so

arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock one's sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful

consideration." Kelly v. Kelly, 340 S.W.3d 673, 676 (Mo. App. 2011) (citation omitted and

internal quotation marks omitted). We presume that the circuit court's division of the property is

correct, and the party challenging the division bears the burden of overcoming the presumption.

Jenkins v. Jenkins, 406 S.W.3d 919, 925 (Mo. App. 2013).

Section 452.330.1, provides:

In a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage or legal separation, or in a proceeding for disposition of property following dissolution of the marriage by a

4 court which lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse or lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the property, the 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 . . . ;

(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.

The factors listed in section 452.330.1 are not exhaustive, and the circuit court has "'great

flexibility and far-reaching power in dividing the marital property.'" Long v. Long, 135 S.W.3d

538, 542 (Mo. App. 2004) (citation omitted). No set formula exists establishing the weight given

to the factors considered under section 452.330.1. Jones v. Jones, 277 S.W.3d 330, 337 (Mo.

App. 2009). "'Disparity in the value of marital property awarded each spouse is justified if any

of the relevant factors, statutory or otherwise, justify an unequal division.'" Long, 135 S.W.3d at

542 (citation omitted). "The fact that the trial court awarded one party a considerably higher

percentage of the marital property than it awarded the other is not per se an abuse of discretion."

Rivers v. Rivers, 21 S.W.3d 117, 123 (Mo. App. 2000). The division of marital property does not

have to be equal, but must only be fair and equitable. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 368 S.W.3d 363, 367

(Mo. App. 2012).

As to the first factor in section 452.330.1(1), which concerns the economic circumstances

of the parties, the evidence established that Wife was unemployed and disabled but was receiving

5 $1,729 a month in social security and $166 a month from a pension from a law firm in New

York. The circuit court also awarded Wife $500 a month in maintenance and awarded Wife one-

half of the marital interest portion of Husband Union Pacific Railroad non-Tier 1 benefits under

the Railroad Retirement Act. Husband was retired and was receiving his retirement benefits

from Union Pacific. The Tier 1 benefits were non-divisible, so Husband was receiving $2,385 a

month for the Tier 1 benefits and receiving the remaining portion of the Tier 2 benefits after

payment of Wife's portion and a portion previously set aside to Husband's first Wife. Husband

was also receiving income from his cattle breeding and farming business. The circuit court,

however, also ordered husband to pay the remaining debt on the Rayville property in the amount

of $6,000 and to pay the remaining debt on the farming equipment in the amount of $32,089.

As to the second factor in section 452.330.1(2) concerning the contribution of each

spouse to the acquisition of the marital property, the evidence established that the Rayville

property initially was the non-marital property of Husband, but after the marriage, Husband

conveyed the property to Wife and himself as husband and wife. The circuit court determined

that the house and real property had a value of $180,000 at the time of the marriage, that

Husband provided the contribution for the acquisition of the asset, and that the current value of

the property was $230,000. Thus, subtracting the remaining debt of $6,000 on the property, the

asset had an increase in value of $44,000 during the marriage. The circuit court awarded this

property to Husband. As to the Excelsior Springs property, the evidence established that this

property initially was the non-marital property of Wife and that Husband provided the

contribution for the acquisition of the asset. Indeed, the evidence established that Husband

borrowed about $29,000 and provided the money to Wife to purchase the property before they

6 were married. The circuit court determined that the mobile home on the property and the real

property had a value of $25,000 at the time of the marriage. After the marriage of the parties,

wife conveyed the property to Husband and herself as husband and wife. The circuit court

determined that the current value of the property was $40,000 and awarded the property to Wife.

As to the remaining property, the circuit court awarded Husband the marital share of

Husband's cattle breeding and farming business, which totaled $131,920.50, but ordered

Husband to pay outstanding loan balances of $32,089 on the farm equipment. Thus, the value of

the cattle breeding and farming property and income less the amount of debt totaled $99,831.50.

The circuit court also awarded Husband a whole life insurance policy and found that the marital

portion of the cash surrender value was $8,846. Further, the circuit court awarded Husband all of

the items of marital property in his possession except for certain items requested by Wife and

awarded Husband three vehicles with a total value of $7,000. As for Wife, the circuit court

awarded her all of the items of marital property in her possession, certain household personal

effects in Husband's possession valued at $1,535, and a 1997 Toyota 4-Runner valued at $500.

In making these awards, the circuit court specifically noted that it considered the contribution of

each spouse to the acquisition of the marital asset and considered Wife's contribution as

homemaker. Moreover, the circuit court also said that it also considered "the increase in value of

property acquired prior to the marriage where marital assets, including labor have contributed to

the increase."

As to the third factor in §452.330.1(3) concerning the value of the non-marital property

set apart to each spouse, the circuit court noted that Husband owned separate, non-marital

property consisting of a 1991 Crown Victoria, a money market account with a balance of

7 $38,000, and the non-marital portion of the whole life insurance policy in the amount of $4,763.

Wife did not have any non-marital property set aside to her.

The remaining two factors in section 452.330.1(4) and (5) pertaining to the conduct of the

parties during the marriage and the custodial arrangements for any minor children do not apply

to the facts of this case. The circuit court, therefore, did not consider these factors.

As already stated, the division of marital property need not be equal, but it must be fair

and equitable considering the circumstances of the case. Jenkins, 368 S.W.3d at 367. The mere

fact that the circuit court awards one party "a considerably higher percentage of the marital

property than it awarded the other is not per se an abuse of discretion." Rivers, 21 S.W.3d at

123. The award of the Rayville property to Husband was the major reason why the percentage of

marital property awarded to each spouse was unequal.1 In making its determination, the circuit

court considered heavily Husband's contribution to the acquisition of the property. The circuit

court determined that the Rayville house and real property had a value of $180,000 before the

parties married and that Husband provided the contribution for the acquisition of the asset.

Husband's contribution to the acquisition of the Rayville property, as well as his contribution to

the acquisition of the Excelsior Springs property, justified the disparity in the division of the

marital property. See Jennings v. Jennings, 327 S.W.3d 21, 24 (Mo. App. 2010). The circuit

court, however, recognized the disparity in the division of the marital property and ordered

Husband to pay Wife the sum of $60,000 "to more fairly and equitably divide and allocate the

values of the marital property." It was Wife's burden to overcome the presumption that the

1 Wife concedes in her brief that there was no dispute between the parties as to how the real property would be divided. They agreed that Husband would receive the Rayville property and that Wife would receive the Excelsior Springs property. According to Wife, the only dispute concerned the value of each property and the extent to which Husband had any non-marital interest in the Rayville property.

8 division of property entered by the circuit court was correct, and she failed to carry that burden.

Jenkins, 406 S.W.3d at 925. As such, we are not convinced that the circuit court's division of

marital property was so unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of discretion.

We affirm the circuit court's judgment.

/s/ JAMES EDWARD WELSH James Edward Welsh, Chief Judge

All concur.