Torrey v. Torrey
333 S.W.3d 34
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Husband and Wife married in April 2004 and separated in February 2008; they had no children.
- Wife filed for dissolution in February 2008; trial occurred in April 2009; circuit court issued final judgment in June 2009.
- Husband challenged the circuit court’s valuation/classification of several assets in six points on appeal.
- The circuit court valued the 401(k) plan as marital and set it aside to Husband; Wife owned the preexisting home; other assets included a retirement account, a Great Western savings account, and two parcels of real estate.
- Husband proposed judgments mirroring his preferred valuations/classifications; the court adopted many of those positions, prompting this appeal.
- Appellate review affirmed the circuit court, adopting the invited-error principle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 401(k) plan was properly classified as marital | Husband contends some funds were pre-marital and should be non-marital. | Wife did not prove any identifiable separate portion with clear and convincing evidence. | Court did not err; entire 401(k) properly classified as marital. |
| Whether residence increase should be treated as Wife’s separate property | Increase due to marital funds/efforts should be added to Wife’s share or appraised differently. | Court followed Husband's proposed judgment; invited error precludes reversal. | Affirmed; invited-error doctrine controls; no appraisal required. |
| Whether Wife's retirement account was properly classified as separate | Some marital accrual should make part of the retirement account marital. | Account was Wife’s non-marital property per evidence and testimony. | Affirmed; Wife’s retirement account properly classified as separate. |
| Whether Great Western savings account was properly classified as marital | Savings account should be marital only to the extent funds became marital. | Classification as marital adopted; Husband notes it still should reflect his separate interest. | Affirmed; court’s classification aligned with Husband’s proposed treatment and no abuse found. |
| Whether two parcels of real estate were properly classified as marital | Parcels (one pre-marriage, one gifted) should be separate property. | Court classified as marital consistent with proposal; invited error doctrine applies. | Affirmed; invited-error principle bars reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for trial court decisions)
- Bridgeman v. Bridgeman, 63 S.W.3d 686 (Mo.App. 2002) (credibility and inferences in appellate review)
- Krost v. Krost, 133 S.W.3d 117 (Mo.App.2004) (trial court credibility and factual weighing flexibility)
- Andrews v. Andrews, 289 S.W.3d 717 (Mo.App.2009) (identifiable separate property and intent after classification)
- Workman v. Workman, 293 S.W.3d 89 (Mo.App.2009) (invited error in proposed judgments)
- McFall v. McFall, 271 S.W.3d 22 (Mo.App.2008) (abuse of discretion in property division standard)
- Rodieck v. Rodieck, 265 S.W.3d 377 (Mo.App.2008) (evidence sufficient to prove separate property)
- Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 108 S.W.3d 834 (Mo.App.2003) (clear and convincing standard in property characterization)
- Cohen v. Cohen, 73 S.W.3d 39 (Mo.App.2002) (broad discretion in classification and valuation of property)