Wilson v. Wilson
Appeal Court from Randolph County Circuit Court to Missouri Court of Appeals – Western District
WD84191
Opinion Filed January 25, 2022
Outcome: Remanded to trial court for additional findings
The parties G.M. Wilson (hereinafter “Wife”) and G.S. Wilson (hereinafter “Husband”) were divorced in 2018. The parties entered into a separation agreement that was incorporated into the divorce decree and was approved by the court on December 26, 2018.
In relevant part, the separation agreement requires Husband to “release[] and quit-claim[] to Wife all his right, title and interest in and to . . . [o]ne-half (1/2) plus an additional $20,000 from the American Funds Account #3450 as of the date of Judgment entry[.]” The agreement also requires Wife to “release[] and quit-claim[] to Husband all her right, title and interest in and to . . . [o]ne-half (1/2) minus $20,000 from the American Funds Account #3450 as of the date of Judgment entry.”
On April 16, 2019, American Funds transferred to Wife a number of shares at their then-current market price that equaled the value of 50% of the shares on the benchmark date plus $20,000. Because the value of the shares had increased significantly during the nearly four months that had passed since the benchmark date, Wife received less than 50% of the shares on April 16, 2019. American Funds’ method of dividing the account had the effect of giving to Husband all of the appreciation in the monetary value of the account from the date of the dissolution judgment through the date of the account’s division.
On October 31, 2019, Wife filed a motion for contempt to enforce the terms of the dissolution judgment. Wife argued that, under the judgment, she is entitled to one half of the shares in the account on December 26, 2018 (the division-of-shares approach), plus $20,000, not one half of the value of the shares on that date. A show-cause summons was issued to Husband, who moved to dismiss both Wife’s application for a show-cause order and her motion for contempt. The motion court held an evidentiary hearing on September 30, 2020.
The Court issued its judgment on November 3, 2020 and found in favor of the Husband and awarded Wife $2,222.87, representing one half of the difference in the cash value of the shares on December 20, 2018 (the date of the separation agreement) and December 26, 2018 (the date the dissolution judgment was entered).
Wife then filed an appeal, on appeal she argued that the trial court erred when it determined that the phrase, “releases and quit-claims” as used in the dissolution judgment, is ambiguous and, therefore, the distribution method used by Husband was appropriate. Rather, Wife contended that the dissolution judgment is unambiguous and, under the judgment, she is entitled to beneficial ownership of half of the shares in the account as of December 26, 2018, rather than half of the value of the shares in the account on that date, plus $20,000. And she claims that the backward-looking, market-value approach used by Husband denied her the benefit of market increases that occurred after December 26, 2018, such that the value Wife received in April 2019.
In its ruling, the Appellate Court noted that “The words and clauses used in a judgment are to be construed according to their natural and legal import.” State ex rel. Div. of Child Support Enf’t v. Hill, 53 S.W.3d 137, 141 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). “[W]hen the language of the judgment is “plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction or interpretation, and the effect thereof must be declared in the light of the literal meaning of the language used.” Dover, 930 S.W.2d at 495 (quoting Hampton v. Hampton, 536 S.W.2d 324, 325 (Mo. App. 1976)). “[T]he test for whether an ambiguity exists is whether the judgment is ‘reasonably susceptible to different constructions.’” Hill, 53 S.W.3d at 141 (quoting Disabled Veterans Tr. v. Porterfield Const., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 548, 552 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999)).
The Appellate Court held that “. . . the provision directing Husband to release and quitclaim ‘all his right, title and interest in and to . . . one-half (1/2) plus an additional $20,000 as of the date of Judgment entry’ is unambiguous. The provision clearly states that Husband is to transfer all right, all title, and all interest in one half the asset to Wife “as of the date of Judgment entry,” December 26, 2018.” The Appellate Opinion further held that, “by basing the division of shares merely upon their value at a later date, Husband failed to effectuate the transfer of shares based upon all right, title, and interest he had in the shares.”
In its opinion, the Appellate court noted, “Because the motion court misinterpreted the dissolution judgment as to distribution of the assets of the account, we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the trial court has discretion to order any relief necessary to make Wife whole.”
