|
|
|
Placing Career Plans of Hold Considered in Property Distribution
© 2003 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
MISSOURI: Bean v. Bean, 115 S.W.3d 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
The trial court did not err by awarding the husband only 36% of the marital assets, and less than 21% of the marital estate, after a six-year marriage. The husband's income was much greater than the income of the wife, because the wife put her own career plans on hold to support those of the husband. In addition, the husband agreed that the wife could retain the marital home, which was the single largest marital asset.
The husband appealed a decree of divorce which awarded a substantially higher percentage of the marital assets to the wife. The court of appeals affirmed the equitable distribution of the couple's assets.
The parties were married for six years before separating in 2000. No children were born of the parties' marriage, although the wife had two children by a prior marriage. Following a hearing, the court awarded marital property with net values of $48,614 to the husband and $103,314 to the wife, the latter consisting primarily of the marital residence.
The husband first argued that an award to him of less than 36% of the marital assets was per se inequitable, especially where he was burdened with debts which reduced his net marital property share to less than 21%. The appellate court disagreed, noting that an award of considerably more property to one spouse than to the other is not per se an abuse of discretion, citing to numerous other decisions in which Missouri courts have approved highly disproportionate distributions of marital property without recognizing any error of law.
The court also rejected the husband's alternative argument that error could be found in the trial court's application of the relevant factors. The statutory factor "economic circumstances of each spouse at the time of the division of property, including the desirability of awarding the family home to the spouse having custody of any children, Mo. Rev. Stat. 452.330.1(1), was considered broad enough to include a party's enhanced capacity to work and earn money. Here, the evidence showed that the husband earned over $119,000 per year, including other employee benefits, as well as a history of increased earnings each year. On the other hand, the wife was working for $10.50 per hour, which was the most she alleged she could earn given her employment history and education. This, when considered in light of evidence showing that the husband had been opposed to the wife going to college during their marriage and that she had put off her own career development for her husband's sake was sufficient to support the trial court's division of assets. The court also noted that the husband had agreed that the wife should retain the marital home, the single, largest marital asset.
Go to: Division of Property Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Featured Services | |
|
| The Research Center: (Divorce Cases of Interest) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Information...
| |||||
Copyright© 1996-2009. All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!