Dubrovenskiy v. Vakula
Appeal from the St. Louis County Court to Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
No. ED108836
Filed on: April 13, 2021
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed.
Procedural History
Dubrvenskiy (hereinafter “Husband”) and Y. Vakula (hereinafter “Mother”) married in August of 2013 and are the parents of one child. Husband filed for divorce in June 2017. Following a hearing in January 2018, a Judgment Pendente Lite (hereinafter “JPL”) was entered by the Court. Both Husband and Wife filed motions to amend the JPL. Following a hearing, the court issued an Amended JPL, modifying its findings as to Husband’s and Wife’s reasonable needs. A trial was held in May of 2019 and a judgment was entered in November of 2019. Both Husband and Wife filed motions to amend the Judgment. On March 17, 2020, the court entered both an Amended Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage and an Order and Judgment Concerning Motions to Amend.
Points Raised on Appeal
Husband raised five (5) points on appeal and argued that the trial court erred in (1) awarding Wife nominal, modifiable maintenance; (2) awarding Wife 15 percent of Husband’s Fidelity account and 17 percent of Husband’s JP Morgan account; (3) awarding Wife the tax exemption for the minor child each year; (4) ordering Husband to pay a portion of Wife’s attorney’s fees and (5) awarding an unequal division of the marital property.
Analysis and Holding
In it’s opinion, the Appellate Court noted that trial court’s have broad discretion. Specifically, “In a court-tried case, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.”
Point 1 – Nominal, Modifiable Maintenance:
The Appellate Court held that substantial evidence did support the trial court’s determination to grant Wife nominal modifiable maintenance. Specifically, the Appellate Opinion held that the trial court’s reliance on Green and Graves were correct and properly took into consideration that “nominal modifiable maintenance is appropriate in situations where one spouse’s ability to remain self-supporting in the future is in substantial jeopardy.” Point I denied.
Point 2 – Awarding Portion of Husband’s Fidelity and JP Morgan Accounts:
Husband introduced the Gambrel method of dividing his account that he now contends was erroneous. The Appellate court held that “A party on appeal generally must stand or fall by the theory on which he tried and submitted his case in the court below.” Husband is not in the position to complain. With regards to the miscalculation of the JP Morgan account, “Husband’s brief entirely fails to acknowledge the trial court resolved its miscalculation in its Order and Judgment Concerning Motions to Amend.” Point II denied.
Point 3 – Awarding Wife Tax Exemption of Child:
The record and judgment show the trial court considered the financial positions of the parties and their custody determinations. Further, the court’s judgment shows Wife was to receive child support. “The schedule of basic child support obligations assumes that the parent 12 entitled to receive support claims the tax exemption for the children entitled to support.” Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Wife the child tax exemption. Point III is denied.
Point 4 – Awarding Wife Attorney’s Fees:
The Appellate Court noted that the trial court properly considered all statutory factors (RSMO 452.355.1) when determining if Wife was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. The attorney’s fees award was not “against the logic of circumstances” or “arbitrary.” Point IV denied.
Point 5 – Unequal Division of Marital Property:
Equitable distribution of marital property does not necessarily equal distribution. RSMO 452.330.1(1)-(5). However, the factors listed in Section 452.330.1 “are not exhaustive, and the trial court has great flexibility and far-reaching power in dividing the marital property.”
Numerous factors supported the trial court’s decision to grant Wife a slightly larger portion of their marital property, including Wife’s periodic unemployment, the upcoming expiration of her employment contract, her hourly pay was typically substantially lower, and her significant debt. Additionally, Husband has significant non-marital property and Husband was found to be abusive at times. In light of these considerations justifying an unequal division of marital property, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering Wife’s financial circumstances and awarding her 51 percent of marital property. Point V is denied.
