Opinion ID: 1663916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Loan to Anjusha Corporation

Text: Finally, wife claims the court erred in failing to distribute as marital property $20,000 in loans repaid to husband from Anjusha Enterprises Limited, a corporation formed by the parties to obtain a franchise from Medicine Shoppe International and operate a pharmacy under that name. The parties were initially the sole shareholders of Anjusha, and the pharmacist managing the operation later obtained some shares. The couple advanced approximately $10,000 to Anjusha at its formation in September 1986, and husband testified that during the next two years following he lent approximately $43,000 in addition. Anjusha later obtained a loan of $93,000 from Boatmen's Bank, and husband received $20,000 from this amount as repayment for monies earlier advanced to the corporation, using the funds toward the down payment on his home. Wife contends the $43,000 was lent to the corporation from marital funds and that the $20,000 repayment, of which she was unaware until the time of trial, should have been distributed by the court as a marital asset. The trial court found, however, that husband had advanced the funds to the corporation and the repayment was not squandered or secreted by him. We cannot say this finding is unsupported by substantial evidence or is against the weight of the evidence. We affirm the trial court's decree in all respects except its child support award and its attribution of a $205 net monthly income to the Tucker property, which we reverse. The cause is remanded for further proceedings to consider these matters and the situation as to the custody of Shaila in a manner consistent with this opinion. HOLSTEIN and BENTON, JJ., and HIGGINS, Senior Judge, concur. COVINGTON, J., concurs in part and concurs in result in part in separate opinion filed. ROBERTSON, C.J., and BLACKMAR, J., concur in part and concur in result in part in opinion concurring in part and concurring in result in part of COVINGTON, J. THOMAS, J., not participating because not a member of the Court when case was submitted. COVINGTON, Judge, concurring in part and concurring in result in part. I concur with the principal opinion with the exception of the issue of child support; on that issue I can concur only in result. With respect, I disagree with the principal opinion that the problem presented is one of an interpretation of the schedule. The schedule is silent when the family income exceeds $10,000, thus does not apply. Furthermore, I fear that the effect of the language of the principal opinion may serve to deter trial courts from entering appropriate awards in excess of the scheduled amount. The amount of support scheduled to be awarded upon a $10,000 monthly income is not a presumed ceiling beyond which any award is suspect in that it might provide an accumulation of capital; If applicable, the schedule serves only as a presumed minimum in this case. Since the schedule does not apply when the family income exceeds $10,000 per month, the trial court should then be guided by the considerations set forth in § 452.340, RSMo Supp. 1990. The relevant factors include: (1) The financial needs and resources of the child; (2) The financial resources and needs of the parents; (3) The standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved; (4) The physical and emotional condition of the child, and his educational needs. Section 452.340.1(1)-(4), RSMo Supp.1990. [1]