In re Marriage of Wood
122211
| Kan. Ct. App. | Nov 13, 2020Background
- Steven and Marlouise Wood married ~1976; Marlouise filed for divorce in April 2017 after ~41 years of marriage. Parties disputed the separation date (Marlouise: 2008; Steven at times claimed 2005).
- Steven retired in 2008 and had a Textron 401(k) that was ~$133,000 at retirement; large withdrawals (~$110,267) occurred in September 2008 and only ~$35,700 remained by year-end.
- Steven testified he made various post-retirement expenditures and transfers (gifts to children, mortgage payoff, a motorcycle purchase, property improvements) and that he paid Marlouise ~$350/month for several years.
- Procedural dispute: Steven argued the district court failed to follow Sedgwick County local rules requiring a pretrial conference and pretrial conference order; a joint pretrial order was later added to the appellate record.
- The district court valued marital property as of the parties’ separation in 2008, treated some withdrawals and expenditures as dissipation, divided assets approximately 50/50 (with specific awards from the 401(k) and pensions), and denied spousal maintenance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Marlouise) | Defendant's Argument (Steven) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by failing to hold/record a pretrial conference per local rule | Pretrial requirement was met; joint pretrial order was submitted and later added to the record | No pretrial conference/order on record; thus property division should be reversed | No abuse; record shows pretrial order filed and appellee properly added it to appellate record; Steven waived objections by not raising them below |
| Whether court erred in setting/identifying valuation date for marital assets | Court may set valuation as facts dictate; 2008 separation date was appropriate and was used | Court failed to set a precise valuation date (should have been fixed at pretrial); inconsistent valuations used | No abuse; court reasonably used separation/retirement in 2008 as valuation date and evidence supports it |
| Whether court improperly valued vehicles using present estimates rather than valuation date values | Trial court may consider post-valuation changes in value; present estimates supported by evidence | Vehicles should have been valued as of the valuation date (Cray) | No abuse; statute permits consideration of value changes and valuations were based on parties’ testimony/evidence |
| Whether withdrawals/expenditures constituted dissipation under K.S.A. 23-2802(c)(8) | Court permissibly found concealment and misuse of marital assets supporting dissipation finding | Court overbroadly applied "dissipation" beyond statutory meaning | No abuse; facts (concealment, large withdrawals, personal expenditures) support finding of dissipation and equalization adjustment |
Key Cases Cited
- Biglow v. Eidenberg, 308 Kan. 873 (2018) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- In re Marriage of Cray, 254 Kan. 376 (1994) (trial court discretion to choose valuation date; pretrial conference should set date when contested)
- In re Marriage of Rodriguez, 266 Kan. 347 (1998) (definition and treatment of dissipation; broad trial-court latitude in property division)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 38 Kan. App. 2d 64 (2007) (pretrial conference order controls subsequent course of action)
- Geer v. Eby, 309 Kan. 182 (2019) (substantial competent evidence standard explained)
- In re Marriage of Thrailkill, 57 Kan. App. 2d 244 (2019) (trial court may treat post-valuation loans/changes as marital debt or value changes)