Waitsman v. Waitsman

Missouri Court of Appeals

Waitsman v. Waitsman

599 S.W.2d 42, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2993

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 15, 1980

Docket40782

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 599 S.W.2d 42 (Waitsman v. Waitsman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waitsman v. Waitsman, 599 S.W.2d 42, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2993 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Marriage dissolved after nine years, both having been previously married and each with a child living from a previous marriage. Husband appeals. We affirm.

Husband complains of the division of marital property. He was incensed about wife receiving their residence with an equity of $30,000.00. However, husband was awarded all of the stock of a corporation, which, under the evidence, could reasonably have had a value of $30,000.00. The home and the stock were the only two major assets of marital property. Although the trial court failed to mention a debt of husband in the sum of $16,300.00, a debt is not property. N.J.W. v. W.E.W., 584 S.W.2d 148, 151 (Mo.App.1979). We cannot say the trial court failed to consider this debt in dividing the marital property. Our reading of the transcript convinces us that the trial court followed the guidelines of § 452.330, RSMo.1978. Madden v. Madden, 585 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Mo.App.1979).

Husband also charges the trial court with error in failing to set out an evaluation and allocation of each of the items of *43 personal property as per Fields v. Fields, 584 S.W.2d 163, 166 (Mo.App.1979). Husband did not ask the trial court for such specification. Absent such request, he cannot now complain of error. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 585 S.W.2d 567, 568 (Mo.App.1979). Rule 73.01. The evidence shows the trial court considered values of property distributed by its order. It does not have to set out a dollar amount for each item of property § 452.305, RSMo.1978.

The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed in accord with Rule 84.16(b).

DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRIST, Judge.

Marriage dissolved after nine years, both having been previously married and each with a child living from a previous marriage. Husband appeals. We affirm.

Husband complains of the division of marital property. He was incensed about wife receiving their residence with an equity of $30,000.00. However, husband was awarded all of the stock of a corporation, which, under the evidence, could reasonably have had a value of $30,000.00. The home and the stock were the only two major assets of marital property. Although the trial court failed to mention a debt of husband in the sum of $16,300.00, a debt is not property. N.J.W. v. W.E.W., 584 S.W.2d 148, 151 (Mo.App.1979). We cannot say the trial court failed to consider this debt in dividing the marital property. Our reading of the transcript convinces us that the trial court followed the guidelines of § 452.330, RSMo.1978. Madden v. Madden, 585 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Mo.App.1979).

Husband also charges the trial court with error in failing to set out an evaluation and allocation of each of the items of *43 personal property as per Fields v. Fields, 584 S.W.2d 163, 166 (Mo.App.1979). Husband did not ask the trial court for such specification. Absent such request, he cannot now complain of error. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 585 S.W.2d 567, 568 (Mo.App.1979). Rule 73.01. The evidence shows the trial court considered values of property distributed by its order. It does not have to set out a dollar amount for each item of property § 452.305, RSMo.1978.

The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed in accord with Rule 84.16(b).

DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 S.W.2d 42, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waitsman-v-waitsman-moctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack