Kaderly v. Kaderly
Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Western District
WD84855
Decision filed December 13, 2022
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
Kaderly (hereinafter “Wife”) and K. Kaderly (hereinafter “husband”) married on February 17, 2017. Wife filed her divorce petition on November 24, 2019. In 2010, Wife had formed a business called SLC II, Inc. (hereinafter “SLC”) of which she owned 100 percent of the shares. SLC in turned owned 50% of the membership interest Cooper-Moeller, LLC (hereinafter “Cooper-Moeller”).
Wife went through a process where she acquired the other Cooper-Moeller’s shareholder’s interest through a series of steps over the next couple of years. In February of 2020, while Wife’s divorce petition was pending, she decided to sell a majority of her shares in the court reporting business. Wife was paid $1.78 million dollars for her interest.
On May 10, 2020 Husband filed a motion requesting leave to amend his counter-petition so he could include the company that Wife sold her shares of the court reporting business. Husband alleged that including the company was a necessary party because Wife formed and operated the company during the marriage. Wife’s answer to the Amended Counter-Petition admitted that company conducted business during the marriage but denied that the company was formed during the marriage.
A two day divorce trial was held and the primary focus was the division of the parties’ assets and debts. The trial court concluded that the proceeds from the sale of the shares through Wife’s company “are part marital and part non-marital” because Wife owned one half of the company before marriage and acquired the other half of the company during the marriage. The court found that $975,000.00 of the shares were marital property and that Wife owed Husband $200,000.00 in order to effectuate equal division of the marital estate.
Husband and Wife both filed post-judgment motions. Wife raises four points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in determining that Wife acquired the shares in another company individually rather than through her company and that the proceeds were incorrectly classified as marital property; (2) Wife asserts that, even if the trial court correctly found that half of the ownership interest in the other company was acquired by Wife in her individual capacity during the marriage, the interest was acquired in exchange for nonmarital property so that the trial court committed error in concluding that the interest was marital property; (3) challenges the trial court’s calculation of the increase in value of the shares during the marriage and (4) Wife’s fourth point on appeal asserts that the trial court committed error in concluding that the increase in the value of the business during the marriage was a consequence of contributed marital efforts and assets, requiring classification of 50 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the business as marital property.
The Appellate Court noted that since the resolution of points one and two on appeal is dispositive, there was no need to address points three and four.
In its opinion, the Appellate Court noted that that the trial court “divide the marital property and marital debts in such proportions as the court deems just.” There is a statutory presumption that “all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage” is marital property. Section 453.330.2 – this presumption is subject to 5 exemptions which are not applicable in this particular situation. “An interest in a business that is acquired by a spouse during the marriage is presumptively marital property.” Kauffman v. Kauffman, 101 S.W.3d 35, 43 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003). The Appellate Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion that 50 percent of the proceeds from the sale of shares were marital property. Point 1 denied.
With respect to Point 2 on appeal, the Appellate Court held that Wife did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that she had acquired shares in the company through the use of non-marital property. The Appellate Court noted that, “Wife’s assumption of new debt and/or of sole responsibility for guaranteed debt was a marital obligation.” Most of the transactions that led Wife to acquire and then sell the shares occurred during the marriage using marital money. Point 2 denied.
