Christopher Jones (“Father” or “Husband”) appeals from a judgment dissolving his marriage to Angela Jones (“Mother” or “Wife”) and awarding joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children. He contends that the trial court erred in designating Mother’s address as the children’s for mailing and educational purposes, failing to split the income tax dependency deductions, assigning a value to the marital home that was unsupported by the record, and failing to consider the debts accumulated after the parties separated when distributing the marital assets and debts. For the following reasons, we remand in part, affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
Father filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on October 23, 2006, but he and Mother continued to live together for several months. In early December 2006, Mother and Father had a confrontation because Mother no longer wanted Cassidy and Caleb to go to the daycare that they had been attending since August 2006. Mother moved out with the children shortly thereafter. After living for a short time in a rental property in North Kansas City, then with her mother in Kansas City, Kansas, Mother moved into another house in North Kansas City on January 24, 2007, and she continued to live there with the children at the time of trial.
The parties attended three mediation sessions in January 2007 and came to an agreement on most issues. They arranged a substantially equal split of parenting time to work around both of their work schedules, which they continued to follow through the time of trial. They agreed that Father would pay child support in the amount of $613 per month, which was the presumed amount on the Form 14, and that they would split the child dependency income tax deductions. They did not agree on which school district the children would attend, Liberty or North Kansas City, and they each presented evidence as to the convenience and quality of each school district and their prior actions concerning Cassidy’s schooling. The parties requested the court to order the parenting plan that they had agreed upon in mediation, with a few minor changes; order Father to pay to Mother the presumed child support amount of $613 per month and split the child dependency tax deductions; and designate whose address would be the children’s for educational and mailing purposes in order to determine which school district the children would attend.
The parties divided up them personal belongings and household furnishings in a substantially equal manner, but they disagreed on whether several of their vehicles were marital or nonmarital and the value of the vehicles. They agreed that Father should be awarded the marital home, which was the primary asset in the marital estate, and that he should make an equalization payment to Mother, but they disagreed on the value of the home and the amount of the equalization payment. The parties had accumulated debt, some of which was incurred after the date of separation. They requested the court to determine the value of the vehicles and the marital home and to divide the marital property and debts in a just and equitable manner.
The case was tried to a commissioner on October 24, 2007, and the commissioner announced her findings on the record at the conclusion of trial. The commissioner subsequently issued her Judgment, Findings and Recommendations, and a judge approved and adopted them in full. The court dissolved the marriage, awarded Mother and Father joint custody of the children, approved the parenting plan that the parties had agreed upon in mediation with two minor changes, and designated Mother’s address as the children’s for educational and mailing purposes. The court also approved the child support amount
A judgment in a dissolution matter “will be affirmed unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.”
Foraker v. Foraker,
Father brings three points on appeal. In his first point, he asserts that the trial court failed to issue statutorily required findings for the relevant best interest factors under § 452.375
1
before designating Mother’s address as the children’s for educational and mailing purposes, thereby precluding meaningful appellate review. He relies on
Buchanan v. Buchanan,
The trial court awarded Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody and found that the parenting plan that the parties had agreed upon in mediation was in the best interests of the children, with two modifications. The court granted Father’s request to change the Monday pickup time from 7:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Mother’s request of one Sunday per month from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The court declined to grant Father’s additional requests to change the pickup time on Fridays from 7:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and to prohibit Mother from allowing her daughter to babysit the children.
The court also designated Mother’s address as the children’s residence for educational and mailing purposes, which meant that the children would be in the North Kansas City school district. The court did not enter any written findings concerning the best interest factors under § 452.375. The judgment states only that the parenting plan proposed by the parties “with the changes outlined above, is in the best interests of the children” and that “consistent with the Parenting Plan ..., and in the best interests of the children, the children should be placed in the joint legal and joint physical custody of the parties, with [Mother’s] address designated for mailing and educational purposes.”
In
Buchanan,
the parties agreed that they should have joint custody, but they disagreed on the designation of the child’s
Determining custody and custodial arrangements of children in dissolution actions is one of the most important and most sensitive duties of the court. The legislature has mandated written findings detailing the specific relevant factors that made the chosen arrangement in the best interests of the child. Written findings are necessary unless the parties have “agreed to a custodial arrangement.”
Id.
at 702 (quoting § 452.375.6). The Court noted that the parenting plan and designation of the child’s residence address were “sub-issues of custody” but held that, “[s]o long as
any
issue or sub-issue of custody is subject to contest between the parties and resolution by the court, written findings that include discussion of the applicable factors from section 452.375.2
2
are required.”
Id.
(emphasis added);
see also Schlotman v. Costa,
In
Strobel,
the original judgment “contained no discussion of what factors made joint custody in the best interest of the children,” but the trial court granted the father’s motion to amend the judgment and “added findings regarding the best interest factors contained in section 452.375.2.”
In the case
mb judice,
the trial court’s statement concerning the children’s best interests is very similar to the statement that was held insufficient in
Buchanan.
Unlike in
Strobel,
the court denied Father’s motion to amend the judgment, which included a request for the statutorily required findings concerning the children’s best interests. Also unlike in
Stro-bel,
the judgment does not even mention the best interest factors under § 452.375.2. “While the trial court need not discuss factors that are not relevant, it is required to discuss those that are.”
Davis v. Schmidt,
The trial court’s findings in this case are insufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review of whether designation of Mother’s address as the children’s for educational and mailing purposes is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for entry of written findings concerning the relevant factors under § 452.375.2. Point I is granted.
In Point II, Father contends that the trial court erred in failing to order the parties to split the income tax dependency deductions because Mother confirmed in open court that they had agreed to split the deductions. Mother concedes on appeal that this was error, although she did not do so before the trial court. In his reply brief, Father asserts that remedial measures are appropriate because Mother has already claimed deductions for both children on her income taxes. Upon remand, the trial court shall order the parties to split the income tax dependency deductions. The court may take additional evidence to determine whether the belated order on the dependency deductions resulted in a financial gain or loss by either party and, if so, the court may make such remedial orders as it deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, adjustment of the equalization payment. Point II is granted.
Father argues in his third point that the court’s valuation of the marital home and division of assets and debts was an abuse of discretion. He asserts that the value assigned to the marital home was not supported by the evidence and that the court erred and abused its discretion in failing to include debts incurred after the parties physically separated in its calculation of the equalization payment.
“In dissolving a marriage, the trial court sets aside to each spouse his or her nonmarital property, then divides the remaining marital property and debts in a just manner after considering all relevant factors enumerated in section 452.330.”
Dunnagan v. Dunnagan,
Section 452.330.1 provides, in pertinent part, that in fashioning a fair and equitable division of marital property, the trial court is required to consider all relevant factors, including:
(1) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the spouse having custody of any children;
(2) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property, including the contribution of a spouse as homemaker;
(3) The value of the nonmarital property set apart to each spouse;
(4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage; and
(5) Custodial arrangements for minor children.
Nelson v. Nelson,
We first address Father’s contention that the court abused its discretion by assigning a value of $250,000 to the marital home. Mother testified that the fair market value of the home was $256,000 based primarily on the January 2006 purchase price, and Father testified that the value was $235,000 based on a May 2007 appraisal. Father insists that the court’s valuation of the home at $250,000 was arbitrary and not supported by the evidence because neither party testified that the fair market value of the home was $250,000.
“In valuing marital property, the trial court may receive any relevant evidence on the issue, and we give great deference to the trial court’s decision.”
Id.
This Court will not disturb the trial court’s valuation as long as it “is within the range of conflicting evidence of value offered at trial.”
Id.
at 276-77 (internal quotation omitted). Contrary to Father’s suggestion, “when the owners testify to two different values, the trial court is not bound to accept either estimate as exact.”
Nelson,
Father also asserts in Point III that the trial court abused its discretion by “leaving out” the credit card debts that the parties accumulated after separation when determining a fair and equitable distribution of the marital estate.
Although trial courts were not obligated to distribute marital debts prior to 1998 because they were not considered marital property, the legislature amended § 452.330.1 in 1998 to require the court to “divide the marital property and marital debts in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors.”
Rogers v. Rogers,
Other than the valuation of the marital home, which is discussed supra, Father does not dispute the trial court’s valuation or division of assets. The court awarded Father the marital home, which it valued at $250,000 with a debt of approximately $204,884, as well as the Buick LeSabre valued at $988 and checking accounts valued at $500. The court awarded Mother the Ford Windstar valued at $9,137, the Saturn valued at $885, and the life insurance policy valued at $1,000. It split the sole retirement account valued at approximately $15,800 equally between the parties. The court specified that these were the only items of marital property that remained to be divided and found that the parties had already divided all other personal property in a substantially equal and equitable manner.
Father provided the majority of the evidence concerning debts. There was a Sam’s Club card apparently in both parties’ names with a balance of approximately $753 at the time of separation. Father had two credit cards in his sole name, Citicard and MBNA, which had balances of $750 and $500, respectively, when the parties separated. At the time of trial, the Citicard card had a balance of approximately $5,500 and the MBNA card had a balance of approximately $7,500. Father testified that the majority of these balances were for general living expenses, plus $1,500 for Cassidy’s bedroom furniture at his house and unspecified amounts for car insurance. Mother had three credit cards in her sole name, Sam’s Club, Visa, and Nebraska Furniture Mart. Father stated that Mother’s cards had no balance when the parties separated but had balances of $188, $1,400, and $327, respectively, at the time of trial. 3 Father testified that he did not believe Mother should have to pay any marital debt and that both parties should be credited for the debts that they had incurred since the date of separation.
The trial court explained its consideration of the evidence concerning debts at the conclusion of the trial, stating:
The Court finds that with respect to debt the Citi-Card, MBNA and Sam’s Card, as well as the other Sam’s card, the Visa and the Nebraska Furniture Mart are marital property — marital debts. However, the Court is taking into consideration only the values of debts as of the date of separation for determination of division of — in calculation of the overall property and debt division, therefore assessing $750.00 of Citi-Card, $500.00 for the MBNA card, $753.00 for the Sam’s Card for the husband, and none of the debts of the— current debts of the [wife], because none of them existed as of the date of separation.
The court then summarized its calculations concerning the equalization payment, stating that “the total assets are $55,670.00,
4
Father argues that the court’s statement at the conclusion of the trial shows that it improperly excluded marital debt from its analysis and the case must be reversed and remanded, relying on
Miller v. Miller,
On appeal, the court stated, “A trial court has no discretion or leeway to leave out of its analysis any marital property or marital debt when deciding what is a fair and equitable distribution thereof.” Id. at 184. The court noted that property and debt division do not have to be equal but must only “be fair and equitable and take into account all relevant factors.” Id. The court then stated:
In effect, the court ordered [the husband] to make an equalizing payment by creating a fictional difference between the two net marital asset awards. It did so by ordering [the husband] to pay marital debts without using those debts in calculating [the husband’s] marital asset amount. This was a misapplication of the law.
[[Image here]]
As a reviewing court, we ordinarily assume the trial court considered all the evidence when it divided the marital property and marital debt. The problem here, however, is that the trial court specifically stated that it did not include over $45,0000 of marital debt in determining the equity of the distribution of the property and then used that omission as the basis for its $20,500 equalization order. In doing so, the court committed reversible error.
Id. (internal citation omitted). The court noted that the trial court’s rationale for assigning the debts incurred after separation was sound but stated, “We simply cannot find authority for excluding the subject material debts in deciding what is a just division.” Id.
In the case at bar, the trial court’s treatment of the parties’ debts is virtually identical to that in
Miller.
Indeed, in the instant case, the trial court expressly stated that it did not consider the parties’ post-separation debts “in calculation of the overall property and debt division,” essentially saying the same thing that led to the Southern District’s reversal in
Miller.
For the same reasons stated in
Miller,
we must reverse the trial court’s distribution of assets and debts, as well as the equaliza
Finally, Father contends that the court erred in ordering him to pay the equalization payment within 60 days because the vast majority of the property awarded to him was in the form of equity in the home, relying on
Waisblum v. Waisblum,
In conclusion, the trial court’s judgment is remanded in part, affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. The portion of the judgment designating the children’s address for educational and mailing purposes is remanded for entry of written findings under § 452.375.2. The portion of the judgment valuing and dividing the marital property and marital debts, including the provision for an equalization payment, is affirmed as to the valuation and division of the marital residence. However, that portion of the judgment is reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment that accounts for all of the marital property and marital debts in making an equitable division of those assets and debts, as well as in ordering any equalization payment between the parties. We also reverse and remand the portion of the judgment awarding the income tax dependency deduction to Mother, with directions to enter a judgment splitting the deduction between Mother and Father, and for further proceedings concerning that issue not inconsistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
Notes
. All statutory citations are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise noted.
. Section 452.375.2 lists eight factors that the court "shall consider” when determining what is in the best interests of the children:
(1) The wishes of the child’s parents as to custody and the proposed parenting plan submitted by both parties;
(2) The needs of the child for a frequent, continuing and meaningful relationship with both parents and the ability and willingness of parents to actively perform their functions as mother and father for the needs of the child;
(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interests;
(4) Which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with the other parent;
(5) The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community;
(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved, including any history of abuse of any individuals involved....;
(7) The intention of either parent to relocate the principal residence of the child; and
(8) The wishes of a child as to the child’s custodian.
. Mother's statement of property indicated that the balances at the time of trial were $500 for Sam's Club, $2,000 for Visa, and $700 for Nebraska Furniture Mart, but Father testified concerning the values on his statement of property, and Mother did not testify as to the value of those debts.
. It appears that the court arrived at the "total assets” by adding together the assets listed in the judgment and subtracting the