Eakens v. Eakens
SD37063
Appeal from the Circuit Court of New Madrid County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Southern District
Date Filed: July 5, 2022
Outcome: Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
The parties R. Eakens (hereinafter “Husband”) and B. Eakens (hereinafter “Wife”) divorced in 2020. After a trial, the court issued its Judgment and determined among other things that the Sterling bank account ending in 8395 was marital property and valued the marital home at $175,000.00 and awarded the home and all related debt to Husband.
Following the trial court’s ruling, Husband filed an appeal an argued that: (1) the trial court erred in classifying the Sterling bank account ending in 8395 as marital property since it contained the proceeds from his father’s life insurance policy of which he was a beneficiary; (2) the trial court’s valuation of the marital home at $175,000.00 was incorrect plus awarding related debt to Husband “creat[ed] an inequitable distribution of assets so heavy in favor of [Wife] as to amount to an abuse of discretion”; and (3) the trial court’s judgment classifying the Sterling Bank account ending in 8395 as marital property, and valuing and awarding to Husband the marital home and related debt “was so heavily in favor of [Wife] as to amount to an abuse of discretion.”
Point I:
During trial, Husband testified that after he received proceeds from his father’s life insurance policy in the amount of $75,300.00, he wrote a check of $37,650 to his brother. Husband argued that $37,650.00 was his brother’s portion of the proceeds from their father’s life insurance policy. Husband failed to provide the necessary documentation. At trial “. . . neither that [insurance check] check nor any life insurance check payable to Husband’s brother was offered or admitted as evidence at trial.”
The Appellate Opinion noted that, “generally, proceeds received as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the life of another are treated as a gift under section 452.330.2.” Fields v. Fields, 643 S.W.2d 611, 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 1982).
The Appellate Court also held that Husband at the time of trial that the bank account was opened in 2018 – which was during the parties’ marriage. The Appellate opinion held that: “We deny this point because the bank account was presumed to be marital property under section 452.330.3, RSMo 2016, since the account was acquired by Husband after marriage and prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution, and Husband failed to meet his burden to persuade the trial court that he had overcome that presumption.” Furthermore, the Appellate Court did not find Husband’s testimony regarding the life insurance proceeds to be credible which impacted the classification of the bank account.
Point I Denied.
Points II and III: The Appellate Court addressed these points together.
With respect to the valuation of the marital home, Wife was the only one who provided information regarding valuation of the home. Husband simply testified that he disagreed with the valuation and he also submitted a Zillow estimate of the marital home.
With regards to the division of the marital assets and debt, during trial court heard testimony about the parties’ education, work history and health needs. Husband had a college level education and a CPA license. Wife on the other hand only has a high school education and does not have a retirement account. Court testimony also indicated that Wife has significant health issues. Wife was found to have inherited the breast cancer gene, BRCA 1, and has had multiple surgeries since 2015 and is expected to undergo at least one more surgery in the near future. Wife’s health insurance was covered by Husband during the marriage and she will be able to obtain new health insurance through her employer, but it will have a higher deductible.
The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court’s analysis. The Appellate Court held that: “Ordering an equal division of the net value of marital property and debts between Husband and Wife was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion, especially in light of Wife’s serious health issues and Wife beginning employment outside the home to facilitate Husband’s return to college and obtaining a degree in accounting that allowed him to increase his pre-degree earnings significantly.” Furthermore, the Appellate Opinion emphasized that, “A trial court’s division of property does not have to be equal, simply just and equitable.”
Points II and III Denied.
