Opinion ID: 4561984
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: The judgment in a court-tried civil case will be sustained “unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it 4 Wife’s sole point relied on does not comply with Rule 84.04(d) in that it raises multip le claims of error: 1) the circuit court abused its discretion by allocating the 401(k) account to Husband; 2) the circuit court’s judgment was not supported by substantial evidence; and 3) the circuit court erred in finding the dissipation of assets. These claims are separate and distinct inquiries and require discrete legal analyses. See Macke v. Patton, 591 S.W.3d 865, 869-70 (Mo. banc 2019). A multifarious point preserves nothing for appellate review. Bowers v. Bowers, 543 S.W.3d 608, 615 n.9 (Mo. banc 2018). An appellant bears the burden to overcome many presumptions on appeal, including the presumption that the circuit court’s judgment is correct. Bramer v. Abston, 553 S.W.3d 872, 879 (Mo. App. 2018). “To satisfy this burden, and overcome the judicial preference for ‘finality of judgments,’ an appellant must comply with the rules of appellate procedure.” Id. Compliance with appellate briefing rules is necessary to ensure appellate courts do not take on an advocacy role by easing the burden on the appellant and speculating about facts or arguments that may overcome the presumption that the judgment is correct. Myrick v. E. Broad., Inc., 970 S.W.2d 885, 886 (Mo. App. 1998) (citing Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 685 (Mo. banc 1978)). However, this Court may conduct review, ex gratia, of such points on the merits. Id. Ultimately, Wife’s right to relief depends on whether the circuit court abused its discretion in distributing the marital assets and debts resulting in prejudice to Wife regardless of whether the circuit court erred finding she dissipated assets. Therefore, this Court exercises its discretion to review this claim of error. 4 erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law.” Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) (setting the standard of review for court-tried civil cases). Only errors “materially affecting the merits of the action,” or prejudicial errors, require reversal. Rule 84.13(b); § 512.160.2. 5 “The trial court has broad discretion in identifying, valuing, and dividing marital property.” Landewee v. Landewee, 515 S.W.3d 691, 694 (Mo. banc 2017) (internal quotation omitted). In addition, appellate courts will “interfere [in marital property divisions] only where the division is so unduly favorable to one party that it constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Stone v. Stone, 450 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Mo. App. 2014). This Court presumes the property division was correct, and the appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption. Id. In reviewing the circuit court’s judgment, this Court accepts as true the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the judgment. Rule 73.01(a)(2); Landewee, 515 S.W.3d at 691. This Court disregards all evidence and inferences to the contrary. In re Marriage of Hillis, 313 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Mo. banc 2010). This Court does not review credibility determinations or resolutions of conflicting evidence. In re Marriage of Patroske, 888 S.W.2d 374, 383 (Mo. App. 1994). Division of Marital Assets “While the trial court’s division of marital property need not be equal, it must be fair” under the facts and circumstances of the case. Silcox v. Silcox, 6 S.W.3d 899, 904 (Mo. banc 1999). “Retirement benefits are considered marital property and are subject to 5 All statutory citations are to RSMo 2016. 5 division, unless they were accumulated prior to the marriage.” Rallo v. Rallo, 477 S.W.3d 29, 39 (Mo. App. 2015). The parties bear the burden to present evidence of the value of marital property. Cosby v. Cosby, 291 S.W.3d 795, 799 (Mo. App. 2009). A circuit court may rely on a party’s estimate of an asset’s value, but the court is not required to find the value in accordance with that estimate. See In re marriage of Kovach, 873 S.W.2d 604, 608-609 (Mo. App. 1993). If the parties do not present credible evidence of the value of marita l property, the circuit court cannot be found to have distributed the property unequally. In re Marriage of Julian, 868 S.W.2d 182, 186-87 (Mo. App. 1994). After the circuit court determines the value of the marital property, the court distributes the property between the parties by weighing the non-exclusive factors outlined in section 452.330.1. Section 452.330.1 provides the circuit court “shall divide the marita l property and marital debts in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors,” but the court must consider certain factors. 6 Marital misconduct is a factor listed in section 452.330.1; however, it is just one of many factors the circuit court must consider when dividing marital property. Other factors may balance or even outweigh 6 These factors are: the economic circumstances of the parties; the contribution of each party to the acquisition of the property, including the contribution of a spouse as homemaker; the value of nonmarital property set aside to each party; the conduct of the parties during the marriage; and the custodial arrangements for the minor children. 6 the effect of marital misconduct and give rise to marital property division that favors one spouse. 7 On appeal, Wife claims the circuit court abused its discretion by unduly favoring Husband in apportioning the marital property and bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion. Silcox, 6 S.W.3d at 904-05. Wife cannot meet this burden and show the circuit court abused its discretion in distributing the marital assets and debts. This Court looks at all facts in the light most favorable to the judgment and disregards evidence to the contrary. Rule 73.01(c); Hillis, 313 S.W.3d at 644. Reviewing the circuit court’s judgment under this standard of review, the circuit court’s asset and debt division is not so disproportio na te in Husband’s favor as to constitute an abuse of discretion. In fact, the division of assets and debts disproportionately favors Wife. As described above, Wife received a vast amount of marital assets totaling $17,000. The only asset apportioned to Husband was the 401(k) account valued at less than $5,000, and he received a larger portion of the marita l debts. While Murphy v. Carron dictates this Court review the circuit court’s judgment to determine if it “erroneously declares the law . . . [or] erroneously applies the law,” 536 S.W.2d at 32, erroneous declaration or application of the law is not itself sufficient to justify reversal. This Court will find reversible error only when it materially affects the merits of the action with a “firm belief that the decree or judgment is wrong.” Id.; see also Rule 7 Additionally, “[e]ven if the [circuit] court believes the evidence of misconduct, it can still divide the property in equal fashion.” Seggelke v. Seggelke, 319 S.W.3d 461, 466 (Mo. App. 2010). 7 84.13(d). In other words, a party must not only demonstrate error but also show prejudice. Murrell v. State, 215 S.W.3d 96, 109-10 (Mo. banc 2007). Because Wife received a disproportionately advantageous division of the marital estate, Wife was not prejudiced by the circuit court’s finding that she dissipated marital assets, even assuming this finding was in error. See Knapp v. Knapp, 874 S.W.2d 520, 522 (Mo. App. 1994) (finding that, despite erroneous application of the law, there was no prejudice to one spouse when the net effect of the asset division favored that spouse). The dissenting opinion contends the dissipation finding was error warranting reversal of the circuit court’s judgment. But even if the circuit court’s dissipation find ing erroneously applied the law, Wife received a vastly disproportionate amount of the marita l estate and cannot show she was prejudiced by the circuit court’s distribution. Without a showing of prejudice, even an erroneous application of law is insufficient for reversal under Murphy v. Carron. In fact, had the circuit court awarded the 401(k) account to Wife, the circuit court would have awarded all the marital assets to Wife, leaving Husband with a disproportionate amount of the marital debt and no assets from which to pay these debts. Such a division could arguably constitute an abuse of the circuit court’s discretion. See Hight v. Hight, 314 S.W.3d 874, 879-880 (Mo. App. 2010) (finding an abuse of discretio n in awarding wife 93 percent of marital assets and only 27 percent of marital debt despite husband’s abuse during the marriage); see also Bohon v. Bohon, 102 S.W.3d 107, 111 (Mo. App. 2003) (stating anything exceeding a 60/40 division may constitute abuse of discretio n 8 without justification) (citing In re Marriage of Woodson, 92 S.W.3d 780, 785 (Mo. banc 2003)). 8 Moreover, the circuit court was tasked with dividing marital property without the benefit of complete information about the disputed property’s financial worth. Husband and Wife shared the burden of proving the value of the account, Cosby, 291 S.W.3d at 799, but neither party provided fixed evidence of its value. Wife valued the account between $2,000 and $5,000. Husband valued the account at approximately $2,000. Wife insists the parties’ statements as to the value of the account constitute evidence to determine the value of the account. See Kovach, 873 S.W.2d at 608-09. While this is true, the parties’ estimated values contained in their property statements for the 401(k) account only support the circuit court’s finding: the imprecise value of “less than $5,000.” And while these estimates provide evidence of the account’s value, the circuit court is not required to find the value in accordance with that estimate. Id. at 609. In this case, the circuit court found the asset had no clear value. Given the circuit court’s credibility findings and overall distribution of property and debts, this Court cannot say an alleged erroneous statement or 8 To be sure, Missouri appellate courts routinely affirm disproportionate distributions of marital property. See, e.g., Woodson, 92 S.W.3d at 785; L.R.S. v. C.A.S., 525 S.W.3d 172, 186-87 (Mo. App. 2017); Rombach v. Rombach, 867 S.W.2d 500, 505 (Mo. banc 1993) (finding no abuse of discretion when the circuit court awarded the wife approximately 78 percent of net marital property); see also, e.g., Nelson v. Nelson, 25 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. App. 2000); Jennings v. Jennings, 910 S.W.2d 760, 765-67 (Mo. App.1995) (affirming the award of 86 percent of marital property to one spouse); Foraker v. Foraker, 133 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. App 2004) (affirming the award of 90 percent of the marital estate to one spouse after accounting for all marital assets, marital debts, and money judgments). However, none of these examples includes allocating all marital assets to one spouse while also allocating a disproportionate amount of the marital debt to the other spouse. 9 application of law prejudiced Wife or that the circuit court abused its discretion or lacked substantial evidence in awarding the 401(k) account to Husband when the account has no clear value. Wife bears the burden to show the asset and debt division was unduly favorable to Husband, and she has not shown the asset and debt division is unfair under the circumstances or that the circuit court committed reversible error. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the circuit court’s judgment, the court acted within its discretion in awarding the 401(k) account to Husband.