Bozarth v. Bozarth
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County to Missouri Court of Appeals – Western District
Opinion Filed: July 5, 2022
WD84827
Outcome: Reversed and Remanded
The parties, J. Bozarth (hereinafter “Wife”) and E. Bozarth (hereinafter “Husband”) divorce in 2002. The parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement, Husband a 100-percent interest in eight various business entities, including the three real estate holding companies. In exchange for Husband receiving 100 percent of the Marital Entities, the Agreement provided that, if any of the Marital Entities were sold or liquidated, the “total net sales proceeds” would be awarded to Husband and Wife according to a step-down schedule, with, essentially, Husband receiving all total net sales proceeds up to $425,000; Husband and Wife splitting equally all total net sales proceeds over $425,000 but less than $1.8 million.
In 2016 Husband sold three of his companies. Some of the proceeds were used to pay off bank loans and the remainder went back to Husband or to other companies that Husband owned. When Wife discovered that Husband had sold three of his companies, she brought a claim of breach of contract against him.
This particular case was appealed twice to the Court of Appeals – this summary covers the second appeal.
The Appellate Court held that Husband’s sale of the properties “constitutes a “sale/liquidation” of the holding companies under the terms of the Agreement, triggering Husband’s duty to divide the “net sales proceeds” of the companies between himself and Wife as set forth in the Agreement.” Husband tried to argue that he reinvested the proceeds from the sale into his properties, so it was simply a “leaseback,” however, the Appellate Court rejected this argument. The Appellate Court also emphasized that a Marital Settlement Agreement is a contract and that the Court will look to the language of the contract to determine the intent of the parties.
The Appellate Court also awarded Wife’s request for attorney’s fees which were greater than $500,000.00. The Appellate Court noted that “Attorney’s fees may be recoverable, however, if a contract so provides.” Evans v. Werle, 31 S.W.3d 489, 493 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000).
Outcome: Reversed and Remanded to trial court for findings consistent with the Appellate Opinion.
