Sporleder v. Sporleder
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Boone Court to Missouri Court of Appeals – Western District
WD85008
Decision Published: October 25, 2022
Outcome: Affirmed in part and Reversed and Remanded in Part
The parties, P. Sporleder (hereinafter “Husband”) and M. Sporleder (hereinafter “Wife”) were married in 1991 and Wife filed her Petition for Dissolution in June of 2020. A trial was held on July 23, 2021. In August the trial court entered its Judgment: (1) Husband was awarded the entirely of the Wife’s business interest in Atkes Properties LLC (hereinafter “LLC”); (2) The trial court awarded Wife’s unreimbursed marital expenses of approximately $44,000.00 as a debt owed to her by Husband: (3) Husband was credited the $160,000.00 in bonuses that he was to receive through work; (4) with regards to the parties’ personal and household goods – the parties were awarded the property that was currently in their possession; (5) The retirement accounts, which were listed in Husband’s name alone – where split equally between the parties and (6) two cars, the 2009 BMW and the 2012 VW GTI were not included in the division of marital assets.
Thereafter, Husband filed a six point appeal alleging as follows: claiming the trial court erred in (1) “awarding Wife’s membership interest in Atkes Properties LLC [(the LLC)] to Husband,” (2) “crediting to Wife unreimbursed marital expenses in the amount of -$44,431.50,” (3) awarding Husband $160,000 in bonus income from “bonus(es) 1st, 2nd, 3rd quarter with 4th quarter “true up[,]”” (4) “finding that each parties’ household goods and personal property were 2 separate property with no value,” (5) “awarding half of the MFS Heritage Trust SEP retirement assets [(MFS Heritage Trust assets)] to Wife,” and (6) “finding that the 2009 BMW was gifted to the parties’ son on his 16th birthday and the 2012 VW GTI was gifted to the parties’ daughter on her 16th birthday[.]”
Point I: Husband argues that the trial court erred in awarding Wife’s interest to him since it was prohibited by the terms of the LLC’s operating agreement and § 347.081 RSMO[] resulting in an inequitable division of the marital estate in violation of § 452.330 RSMO.
Additionally, the Appellate Court noted that LLC’s operating agreement does not prohibit the transfer of shares between members of the LLC themselves. Consequently, there can also be no violation of section 347.081, as nothing in the operating agreement itself was violated.
The Appellate Court further emphasized that, “[w]e acknowledge that this district has a historical distaste of leaving marital property vested in the parties as tenants in common after dissolution absent a compelling reason.” Thomas v. Thomas, 76 S.W.3d 295, 303 n.4 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (citations omitted). In the instant case, there was no compelling reason to keep the business vested in two individuals post-divorce.
Point II, III and IV: Each of these points allege the trial court erred because there was no substantial evidence supporting each of the three trial court’s decisions.
With regards to Point II, Husband acknowledged that he stopped adding money to the joint marital account when the parties separated and therefore Wife was solely for paying the marital expenses. Point II dismissed.
With regards to Point III, the Appellate Opinion noted that “Husband did not discuss Wife’s testimony that he receives the quarterly compensation . . . Husband also failed to account for his own testimony where he stated Wife was correct in this description of the timing and frequency of the bonuses and true-up.” Point III denied.
With regards to Point IV, both parties acknowledged at trial that household goods and personal property would be characterized as marital property. While Wife provided a valuation of the household goods, Husband did not. The Appellate Court went on to note that the trial court is not obligated to assign a value to household goods. Additionally, the Appellate opinion noted that multiple exhibits regarding the value of the household goods was received by the Court and the parties’ testimony. Therefore, the trial court failure to include a valuation is not an error. Point IV denied.
Point V: Husband did not provide any kind of explanation how equally dividing the retirement account between the parties was an abuse of discretion was in error. Point V denied.
Point VI: Husband argues the trial court erred in finding that the 2009 BMW and the 2012 VW GTI were gifted to the parties’ son and daughter, respectively, on each of their 16th birthdays. The Appellate Court agreed with Point VI. Even though the cars were driven almost exclusively by the children they were titled in the parties’ names and neither party testified that these cars were gifts to the minor children, this testimony is not sufficient evidence to allow the court to assign the vehicles to the children as third parties in the dissolution. Point VI – reversed and remanded – previous value of the cars established at court will be used and will be distribute between Husband and Wife.
