Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.330

Section 452.330.1(2) requires consideration of the value of property set apart to each spouse, but that factor does not require consideration of the value of marital property.

In re the Marriage of Williams · filed 1979-04-301(2)

Section 452.330.1(2) RSMo provides “the value of the property set apart to each spouse” is one of four enumerated relevant factors in a division of marital property. The Wentzville property is concededly marital property; hence Section 452.330.1(2) does not require the trial court to consider its value in effecting a division of property.

Section 452.330.1 allows the court to consider each spouse’s contribution to marital property, including homemaking, and the parties’ conduct during marriage when dividing property.

Reynolds v. Reynolds · filed 1980-11-25(1)

Section 452.330.1, RSMo 1978, provides in dividing marital property between the spouses the court is to consider factors including “[t]he contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property, including, the contribution of a spouse as homemaker; [and] ... [t]he conduct of the parties during the marriage.” Without detailing the evidence, we believe that the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s order as to the distribution of the pension fund.

Section 452.330.1 allows the court to consider each spouse’s separate property when dividing marital property.

Ware v. Ware · filed 1983-02-08(1)

Under § 452.-330.1, RSMo (1978), separate property is one of the four nonexclusive factors to be considered by the trial court when dividing marital property.

Section 452.330.1 requires courts to consider a spouse’s homemaking contributions when dividing marital property, including child care provided after separation.

Anderson v. Anderson · filed 1983-08-16(1)

Section 452.330.1, RSMo (Supp.1981) lists four nonexclusive factors to be considered in making a just division of marital property. The first factor is “the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property, including the contribution, of a spouse as homemaker.” ... The services provided exclusively by appellant have an economic value which constitute her contribution to the acquisition of the house purchased by respondent. We therefore hold that the trial court erred in its consideration of this factor.

Section 452.330.1(1) makes a spouse’s contribution a factor in dividing marital property, so evidence of those contributions is admissible.

Sauer v. Newman · filed 1984-01-17(1)(1)

The law includes the contribution of a spouse as a factor to consider in the division of marital property. Evidence of the parties’ contributions to the enterprise was admissible. § 452.330.1(1) RSMo.1978 (1982 Cum.Supp).

Section 452.330.1(2) requires a court dividing marital property to consider the value of property set apart to each spouse, but a specific valuation of separate property is unnecessary unless requested.

Anderson v. Anderson · filed 1985-04-30(1)(2)

In dividing marital property, the trial court must take into account “all relevant factors,” including “the value of the property set apart to each spouse.” Section 452.330.1(2), RSMo.Cum.Supp.1983. ... However, the holding in Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865 (Mo. banc 1984), implies that, unless specifically requested, a trial judge no longer need assign a specific value to such property. Additionally, it is evident in this case that the trial judge, while not specifically valuing the separate non-marital property, considered that factor in making his decree.

Section 452.330.1(2) requires courts to consider the value of separate property set apart to each spouse, but does not require a dollar-for-dollar offset when dividing marital property.

Smith v. Smith · filed 1985-12-191(2)

Section 452.330.1(2) provides the value of the property set apart to each spouse shall be considered. ... No case has been cited or found that holds such consideration should extend to a dollar for dollar consideration in the division of the marital property.

Section 452.330.1(1) requires courts dividing marital property to consider each spouse’s contribution to its acquisition.

Hylton v. Hylton · filed 1986-09-02.1(1)

One of the factors to be considered by the trial court in making the division of marital property is the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property.

Section 452.330 requires the trial court to set apart each spouse’s separate property before dividing the marital property.

Barron v. Barron · filed 1988-03-29

The spouses’ rights in their separate and marital property must be determined. Id. at 335, and Section 452.330 requires the trial court to set apart to each spouse his or her separate property before dividing the remaining marital property.

Section 452.330.1 requires courts to consider the parties' separate assets when dividing marital property.

Slj v. Rj · filed 1989-06-131

Husband also claims the court failed to consider the parties' separate assets in making the division as required by section 452.330.1, RSMo 1986. The decree indicates that the court considered all the factors in section 452.330 as it was at the time of trial, prior to the 1988 amendments, and mentions the parties' separate assets. There is no evidence that the court ignored any applicable factor and, as stated above, we do not find the division so inequitable as to require reversal.

Section 452.330 permits a court to consider a spouse’s premarital contribution when dividing property that later became marital property.

Gremaud v. Gremaud · filed 1993-07-27(1)

Transmutation of separate property into marital property will not preclude the trial court from considering the premarital contribution in dividing the marital property.

Section 452.330.1(2) permits a court to consider each spouse’s contributions to marital property even when those contributions came from marital assets or funds.

Knapp v. Knapp · filed 1994-03-15(1)(2)

Although the court certainly may consider the nonmar-ital contributions made by a spouse, the source of the contributions does not have to stem solely from nonmarital assets or funds.

Section 452.330.1(2) requires courts dividing marital property to consider a spouse’s homemaking and child-rearing contributions, including when dividing retirement benefits.

Ewing v. Ewing · filed 1995-06-27(1)(2)

The services of a homemaker cannot be ignored in analyzing each spouse’s contribution to acquisition of marital assets. ... Consideration of the statutory factors leads us to conclude that Beverly is entitled to one-half of Charles’ retirement proceeds.

Section 452.330 allows a court to consider a spouse’s premarital contribution even after separate property becomes marital property.

Hutcherson v. Hutcherson · filed 1995-11-14

Dorothy cites Gremaud for the proposition that the fact that separate property is transmuted into marital property does not preclude the trial court from considering the premarital contribution in dividing the marital property. Dorothy is correct; however, Dorothy does not demonstrate that the court failed to consider her contribution or otherwise abused its discretion.

Section 452.330.2 treats each spouse’s contribution as a factor in dividing marital property but does not require an express finding on that contribution.

Chiodini v. Chiodini · filed 1998-08-18(2)

Second, although not expressly considered, there is no support for a finding the trial court did not consider, or refused to consider, all relevant factors in the division of marital property as defined in section 452.330.2 RSMo 1994. The failure of the trial court to expressly find the degree of contribution of the parties does not, in itself, support a finding the court failed to consider this is a relevant factor.

Section 452.330.1 requires a court to consider the value of each spouse’s nonmarital property when dividing marital property, including a teacher’s pension awarded as separate property.

Silcox v. Silcox · filed 1999-12-21(1)

However, it is the duty of the trial court to consider the value of nonmarital property to each spouse in its division of marital property.

Section 452.330.1(2) requires courts dividing marital property to consider each spouse’s contribution to its acquisition, including premarital contributions.

Myers v. Myers · filed 2001-06-14(1)(2)

Given the facts of this case, the most relevant statutory factor that the trial court had to consider in dividing the marital property was the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property.

Section 452.330.1(2) requires a court to consider each spouse’s contribution to acquiring marital property, but leaves the weight of that factor to the trial court.

In Re the Marriage of Shields v. Shields · filed 2001-11-26(1)(2)

He relies upon § 452.330.1(2), RSMo 2000, which requires a court to consider the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of marital property when considering all relevant factors before dividing the property. Husband’s reliance is misplaced. ... It is up to the trial court to determine the weight it gives to each factor in dividing the property. ... Husband’s contention that his contribution should outweigh all the other factors is without support.

Section 452.330.1(2) requires courts dividing marital property to consider each spouse’s contribution to acquiring it.

Farnsworth v. Farnsworth · filed 2003-07-081(2)

Under section 452.330.1(2), the trial court is required to consider the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property in dividing the marital assets. Accordingly, the reclassification of the property as marital requires the consideration of Wife’s significant contribution to the purchase of the real property when dividing the marital assets.

Section 452.330.1(2) permits a court dividing marital property to consider a spouse’s premarital contribution to its acquisition.

Reynolds v. Reynolds · filed 2003-07-15(1)(2)

As noted previously, however, one of the factors the trial court may consider in dividing the marital property is a party’s contribution to the acquisition of marital property. Section 452.330.1(2). This includes contributions from premarital property.

Section 452.330.1(2) requires consideration of each spouse’s contribution to acquiring marital property, but a premarital contribution does not require an equal reduction in the property’s valuation.

Rodieck v. Rodieck · filed 2008-10-07(1)(2)

In any event, it is clear from the record that the trial court considered Wife’s $17,000.00 contribution in its analysis of the factors set forth in § 452.330.1, which include the “contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the marital property.” ... We cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion by not reducing the valuation of the marital home by the amount of Wife’s $17,000.00 pre-marital contribution to its acquisition.

Section 452.330 allows a trial court to give substantial weight to a spouse’s nonmarital property when dividing marital property, even if the division is unequal.

Manning v. Manning · filed 2009-08-04(1)

To arrive at its award, the trial court apparently gave considerable weight to the third factor, namely, the significant value of Wife’s real estate acquired prior to the marriage. ... Therefore, mindful of our standard of review, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital property until a spouse shows it was acquired by gift.

Boyers v. Boyers · filed 1978-02-28(3)

Since the conveyance was made during the marriage it was presumed to be marital property until a showing had been made that it was acquired by gift. § 452.330.3, RSMo 1973 Supp.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital, but a showing that it was acquired through a method listed in subsection 2 removes the presumption; the court then decides its status from the evidence.

In Re the Marriage of Badalamenti · filed 1978-03-21(3)

However, “[t]he presumption of marital property is overcome by a showing that the property was acquired by a method listed in subsection 2.” Section 452.330.3 RSMo Supp.1973. ... But by making such a showing and overcoming the presumption, the husband merely made the presumption disappear. After this occurred the trier of fact received the issue free of any presumption and “the existence or nonexistence of the fact once presumed is to be determined from the evidence as if no presumption had ever been operative in the case.”

Section 452.330.3 presumes property acquired during marriage is marital property, even when one spouse paid most of its cost and title is held jointly.

Hebron v. Hebron · filed 1978-03-28(3)

Property acquired after the marriage and placed in joint names is presumed to be marital property even if one spouse furnishes a greater part of the consideration.

Property acquired in exchange for premarital property can rebut the presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital property.

In Re the Marriage of Pate · filed 1979-12-03(2)(2), (3)

Thus by statutory authority a showing that the C/D’s claimed here to be marital property were acquired by the husband in exchange for premarital property owned by him overcomes the presumption.

Section 452.330 presumes property acquired during marriage is marital; a spouse claiming an exchange for premarital property must show by clear and convincing evidence that the transaction was not intended as a gift or settlement to the other spouse.

Nilges v. Nilges · filed 1980-11-05(3)

This presumption may be overcome by a showing in the evidence that the property was acquired by a method listed in subsection 2 of this statute. Among the methods which might be considered pertinent in this case are property acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the marriage. The tract sold was in appellant’s name and had been acquired prior to the time of the marriage. However, it must also be shown by clear and convincing evidence that such a transaction was not intended as a provision for a settlement upon or as a gift to the other spouse. Here there was no evidence of a clear and convincing nature that was either offered or received to overcome the presumption.

Section 452.330.3 presumes the cash value of life insurance policies and bank accounts to be marital property unless evidence rebuts the presumption.

Walker v. Walker · filed 1982-03-02(3)

The cash value of the appellant’s life insurance policies and the $900 bank account are presumed to be marital property. § 452.330.3, RSMo 1978. ... The record contains no evidence that would overcome the presumption.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital, and the spouse claiming otherwise bears the burden of overcoming that presumption.

Nelson v. Nelson · filed 1982-06-29(3)

At trial appellant testified that these stocks and the bond were “acquired since the date of the marriage.” From this testimony we conclude that a presumption was raised that these securities were marital property pursuant to § 452.330.3 RSMo. 1978. The burden of overcoming this presumption then shifted to appellant, and from the evidence in the transcript we cannot hold that the trial court erred in finding that she had not overcome the presumption that these securities were marital property as dictated by § 452.330.3 RSMo.1978.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital, and a spouse claiming a jointly titled home was not a gift must prove that claim by clear and convincing evidence.

Tisius v. Tisius · filed 1982-11-09

Although wife’s testimony at trial tended to rebut the marital property presumption, husband’s testimony tended to prove wife intended the transfer to him as a gift. ... Wife had the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence the transfer of the home to the Tisiuses as tenants by the entirety was not intended as a gift. ... A favorable finding on this evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find the house was marital property.

Section 452.330(3) presumes that property acquired after marriage and before a decree of legal separation is marital property unless evidence overcomes the presumption.

Bland v. Bland · filed 1983-03-29(3)

It constituted property acquired “subsequent to the marriage and prior to a decree of legal separation” and is therefore presumed to be marital property. Section 452.330.3, RSMo 1978. There being no evidence tending to overcome this presumption, the $4,000 fund should have been considered by the court in its division of marital property.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital, and the spouse claiming it is separate must prove that an exception applies.

Searcy v. Searcy · filed 1983-09-27(2), (3)

Placed in sharper perspective, the husband stopped short of proving that the items of property in controversy constituted his separate property by virtue of one or more of the exceptions delineated in § 452.330:2.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital property, and the spouse claiming an exception must rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence.

McDowell v. McDowell · filed 1984-03-27(3)

All property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital property. Section 452.330.3, RSMo Supp. 1981. The burden of proving otherwise and that the asset falls within one of the exceptions is on the party attacking the presumption. ... The presumption that property acquired during the marriage is marital property obtains unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 452.330 presumes that property acquired during marriage is marital property.

Pearson v. Pearson · filed 1985-03-12

There is a statutory presumption that property acquired during the marriage is marital property. § 452.330 RSMo Supp.1981.

Section 452.330.3 presumes property acquired during marriage is marital; funds spent on living expenses need not be included in the division when there is no evidence of squandering.

In Re Marriage of Layton · filed 1984-12-26(3)

The husband cites to § 452.330.3, RSMo 1978 which states that all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage but prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution is presumed to be marital property. The monies in question here are undoubtedly marital property, however, it was not error for the trial court to divide or account for the $2,000.00 checking account, the $700.00 in coins, or the entire $10,000.00 certificate of deposit, since those funds (except for the $4,204.87 balance on the certificate of deposit) had been depleted for living expenses.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital, but that presumption can be overcome by tracing the purchase to separate property and showing that no gift or settlement was intended.

Frerichs v. Frerichs · filed 1986-01-28(3)

Property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage and prior to a decree of legal separation is presumed marital property. § 452.330.3 RSMo 1984. The presumption may be overcome by showing that the property was acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the marriage, and that the transfer was not intended as a provision for settlement or gift to the other spouse.

Property acquired after marriage is presumed marital regardless of whose name holds title.

Mastin v. Mastin · filed 1986-05-13(3)

Nevertheless, the Merrill Lynch account, from which SMK Enterprises, Inc. was financed, was acquired subsequent to the marriage; therefore, the account is presumptively marital regardless of how it is titled. Section 452.330.3, RSMo 1978.

Section 452.330(3) presumes property acquired during marriage to be marital regardless of title, unless evidence shows it falls within a statutory exception.

Estate of Fleischmann v. Fleischmann · filed 1987-01-27(3)

In the present case, a rebuttable presumption arises that any property acquired by husband during the marriage was marital property or property “accumulated” during the marriage. It is immaterial that the property acquired during the marriage was placed in husband’s name alone. Once plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that property was acquired during the marriage, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to defendant to show that the property was separate property because it fell within one of the exceptions.

Section 452.330.3 presumes property acquired after marriage is marital, and the spouse claiming it is separate bears the burden of proof.

Mika v. Mika · filed 1987-02-24(3)

However, the dissolution statutes also create a legal presumption that property “acquired” subsequent to the marriage is marital property. § 452.330.3. ... Naturally, the spouse seeking to rebut the statutory presumption of marital property carries the burden of proof.

Section 452.330.3 presumes property acquired during marriage is marital regardless of title unless evidence rebuts that presumption.

Frame v. Frame · filed 1987-07-07.3

Petitioner thus offered no evidence to rebut the presumption of marital property under § 452.330.3. Therefore, the entire property is marital property and the sale price of $35,000.00 should be considered as marital property.

Section 452.330.3 presumes property acquired during marriage and titled jointly to be marital property; a spouse can rebut that presumption by showing it was exchanged for premarital property and proving by clear and convincing evidence that no gift, provision, or settlement for the other spouse was intended.

Willyard v. Willyard · filed 1986-10-07(3)

AH property acquired during a marriage which was put in the joint names of husband and wife is presumed to be marital property under § 452.330.3, RSMo.Cum. Supp.1984. To overcome this presumption, a party must show that the property was acquired in exchange for property accumulated prior to the marriage and prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was no intent to make a provision for, a settlement in favor of, or a gift to the other spouse.

Section 452.330.3 presumes property to be marital only if it was acquired after the marriage being dissolved.

Gibson v. Gibson · filed 1988-05-03(3)

Absent proof that the real estate was acquired “subsequent” to this marriage, no presumption exists to support a finding that the real estate is marital property.

Section 452.330 presumes property acquired during marriage is marital and requires clear and convincing evidence to establish a listed exception.

In Re Marriage of Reed · filed 1988-11-28(2), (3)

Sections 452.330.2 and 452.330.3 create a presumption that all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage is marital property, and the party attacking this presumption has the burden to show that property he claims as separate property falls within one of the enumerated statutory exceptions.

Property acquired after marriage is presumed marital, and evidence that it may have been acquired in exchange for premarital property does not overcome that presumption.

Marriage of Probstein v. Probstein · filed 1989-02-14(3)

The evidence does not compel a finding that the shares were issued in exchange for premarital separate property. They may have been compensation for services. Proof that they may be separate property does not overcome the presumption.

Section 452.330(3) presumes property acquired during marriage is marital and places the burden on the party claiming it became separate property.

Moseley v. Moseley · filed 1990-07-10(3)

This section provides property acquired by either spouse during marriage is presumed marital. The burden is on the party attacking the statutory presumption to show it is no longer marital.

Section 452.330.3 presumes property acquired during marriage is marital regardless of title; a spouse claiming it is separate must rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Hall v. Hall · filed 1991-02-19(3)

Under § 452.330.3, RSMo Supp.1990, all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage is presumed to be martial property regardless of how title is held. ... A spouse who claims such property to be non-marital must assume the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Property acquired after marriage is presumed marital, and the spouse claiming an exception bears the burden of showing one under subsection 2.

Rickard v. Rickard · filed 1991-10-25(3)

The presumption of marital property is overcome by a showing that the property was acquired by a method listed in § 452.330.2. Leapy has the burden to rebut the statutory presumption in regard to Ozark Distributing Company and the various tracts of real estate.

Property acquired during marriage, including property titled jointly, is presumed to be marital property.

Strobel v. Strobel · filed 1992-01-10(3)

Property acquired during a marriage, including that put in the joint names of the spouses, is presumed to be marital property under § 452.330.3, RSMo Supp. 1990.

Section 452.330 presumes property acquired during marriage is marital property unless clear and convincing evidence establishes an exception.

Absher v. Absher · filed 1992-11-10(3)

Section 452.330.3, RSMo Supp.1991, provides any property acquired subsequent to the marriage and prior to legal separation or dissolution is presumed marital property. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence the property falls within one of the five exceptions listed in § 452.330.2. ... Husband failed to meet his burden of proof to rebut the presumption.

Section 452.330.2 presumes property is marital unless the spouse claiming it as separate proves that an exception applies.

Kahn v. Kahn · filed 1992-09-08.2

Wife failed to overcome the burden of demonstrating the challenged stock was her separate property.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital property, and a spouse claiming it was a gift must rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Summerville v. Summerville · filed 1993-11-09(3)

Wife relies upon § 452.330.3, RSMo Supp.1992, which creates a presumption that all property acquired during a marriage and prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution is marital property. Section 452.330.2 lists several exceptions to this presumption, including property acquired by gift. ... The party attacking the presumption of marital property has the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. ... Thus, the trial court did not err in designating the property as non-marital.

Property acquired after marriage and before a decree of legal separation or dissolution is presumed marital property, including employer stock received as a bonus during the marriage.

Whitworth v. Whitworth · filed 1994-06-14(3)

Section 452.330.3, RSMo Supp.1993, provides that any property acquired subsequent to the marriage and prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution is presumed marital property. ... The trial court was within its discretion in determining that the stock was marital property, and Husband's complaint is without merit.

Section 452.330(3) presumes property acquired after marriage is marital property and places the burden on a spouse claiming otherwise to trace the property to a non-marital source.

Bold v. Bold · filed 1995-12-19(3)

In this case, this is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that property acquired after marriage is marital property. Section 452.330.3, RSMo 1994. It was husband’s burden to trace the non-marital property into his capital contributions to Plaza Man- or Associates. The tracing was inadequate.

Property acquired after marriage is presumed marital regardless of how it is titled.

Kennedy v. Milligan · filed 1996-02-20(3)

Although there was evidence at trial that Malvin was unaware of how Helen managed some of her money, the jury determined that appellants failed to rebut the presumption that the assets in question were marital property.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital even if titled in one spouse’s name, unless it was acquired through an exception in subsection 2.

McMillin v. McMillin · filed 1996-09-20(3)

However, under subsection 3 of § 452.330, Wife’s postnuptial half interest in the Battlefield building is presumed to be marital property even though title is held in her name alone. While that presumption may be overcome by a showing that her postnuptial half interest was acquired by a method listed in subsection 2 of § 452.330, there is no evidence that it was acquired by any such method.

Property acquired after marriage and before separation or dissolution is presumed marital regardless of title, unless acquired by a method listed in subsection 2.

In Re Marriage of Perkel · filed 1998-02-10(3)

All property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage and prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution of marriage is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually or by the spouses in some form of co-ownership. § 452.330.3, RSMo 1994. Although such presumption is overcome by a showing that the property was acquired by a method listed in subsection 2 of § 452.330, it is obvious that the software written by Marc was not acquired by any of those methods.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital, and a spouse claiming that part of a FELA settlement is nonmarital must prove it by clear and convincing evidence.

Heslop v. Heslop · filed 1998-03-24(3)

Ronald fails to recognize the statutory presumption that all property acquired during the marriage is marital property. Ronald, as the appellant, must demonstrate that he proved by clear and convincing evidence that a portion of the settlement was nonmarital property.

Section 452.330’s presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital property does not apply when an antenuptial agreement provides that some property acquired during marriage remains separate.

Langworthy v. Preston · filed 1998-09-01(3)

He asserts that, because § 452.330.3, RSMo 1994, governing property division in divorces, creates a presumption that all property acquired during a couple’s marriage is marital property, the same presumption should apply in this case. This presumption, however, never applied to the Thomsons’ marriage. The presumption dissolved when the Thomsons entered into an agreement which provided that, in some cases, property acquired by either of them during their marriage still would be deemed separate property. See § 452.330.2(4).

Property acquired after marriage is presumed marital, and the party challenging that presumption must rebut it by clear and convincing evidence.

In re the Marriage of Burton · filed 1998-09-28(3)

Property acquired subsequent to a marriage is presumed to be marital property. Section 452.330.3, RSMo Supp.1997. Appellant, as the party attacking this presumption, has the burden of rebutting it “by clear and convincing evidence.” ... It appears the trial court did not believe Appellant’s evidence regarding either asset, and, deferring to the trial court under our limited review, we find no error.

Property acquired after marriage is presumed marital, and a spouse claiming that property is separate must prove it by clear and convincing evidence.

Klockow v. Klockow · filed 1998-10-13(3)

Section 452.330.3 sets out the presumption that all property acquired after marriage is marital property. ... Husband, as the party claiming that the property in question is non-marital, bears the burden of proving his contention by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 452.330.3 presumes property acquired during marriage is marital property unless clear and convincing evidence overcomes that presumption.

In Re Marriage of Haugh · filed 1998-10-28(3)

This court holds that when the parties acquired the disputed realty in 1992, they acquired it as marital property in that (a) it was presumed to be marital property per § 452.330.3, and (b) Mike presented no clear and convincing evidence to overcome that presumption.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital unless clear and convincing evidence overcomes that presumption.

Kinsey-Geujen v. Geujen · filed 1999-01-26(3)

Kinsey-Geujen did not present evidence which overcame the strong presumption created by § 452.330.3 that her contribution of nonmarital property to purchase the marital house transmuted her nonmarital property into marital property.

Property acquired after marriage and before legal separation or divorce is presumed marital property.

Ansley v. Ansley · filed 2000-02-29(3)

Therefore, since the IRAs were acquired after the parties’ marriage in 1980, but before a legal decree of separation or divorce, the IRAs are presumed to be marital property.

Section 452.330.3 presumes that property acquired during marriage is marital property even when it is titled in one spouse’s name.

Montgomery v. Montgomery · filed 2000-04-25(3)

Section 452.330.3 creates a statutory presumption that all property acquired by either spouse after the marriage and prior to dissolution of marriage is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether it is held individually or by some form of coownership. We have held that Husband transmuted his nonmarital property into marital property by opening the BMA. Thus, the purchase of Great Southern stock and the Great Southern Investment Account was property acquired after the marriage with marital funds. Titling these assets individually does not destroy the presumption of marital property.

Income earned during marriage is presumed marital property, as is property purchased with that income.

King v. King · filed 2001-10-30(3)

The antenuptial agreement between Husband and Wife did not exclude from marital property the income earned by each during the marriage; thus, such income, including Husband's receipt of the King Farms profits, was marital property. Any property acquired from the profits of King Farms, therefore, was also marital property.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital, and a party claiming it was a gift must rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence.

Engeman v. Engeman · filed 2003-10-28(3)

Section 452.330.3, RSMo, states that all property acquired by a spouse after marriage and prior to a decree of separation or dissolution is presumed to be marital property. ... The trial court’s conclusion as to this parcel is supported not only by the statutory presumption but also by Husband’s statements and the trial court’s credibility finding. We cannot say that the countervailing evidence instantly tips the scales in favor of rebutting the presumption or that we are firmly convinced that the trial court was wrong.

Stock acquired during marriage remains marital property after transfer into one spouse’s name unless clear and convincing evidence shows both spouses intended to exclude it from marital property.

Hoberock v. Hoberock · filed 2005-03-08(3)

Because Wife had no intent to dispose of her marital interest in the company, Husband failed to overcome the statutory presumption that the shares were marital property. The trial court did not err in classifying the shares as marital property.

Insurance proceeds acquired during marriage are presumed marital property, and the spouse claiming otherwise bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.

Preston v. Preston · filed 2006-04-28(3)

The insurance proceeds for the loss of personal property were acquired by the parties during the marriage. Therefore, the proceeds are presumed to be marital property, and Husband has the burden of rebutting that presumption.

Section 452.330.2 presumes property acquired during marriage is marital property unless a spouse proves a statutory exception.

Groenings v. Groenings · filed 2008-12-02(2)

Here, it is clear the Monroe property was titled jointly, acquired after the date of the marriage, and prior to the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. Therefore, the Monroe property is presumed to be marital property, unless Husband proves that it was acquired by a method listed in Section 452.330.2.

Property acquired by either spouse after marriage and before dissolution is presumed marital, and the spouse claiming otherwise must prove an exception.

In re the Marriage of Robert Shawn Eakens and Billie Jean Eakens ROBERT SHAWN EAKENS v. BILLIE JEAN EAKENS, Respondent-R · filed 2022-07-05(3)

We deny this point because the bank account was presumed to be marital property under section 452.330.3, RSMo 2016, since the account was acquired by Husband after marriage and prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution, and Husband failed to meet his burden to persuade the trial court that he had overcome that presumption.

Section 452.330.1(2) requires courts to consider the value of property set apart to each spouse when dividing marital property.

Freeman v. Freeman · filed 1979-07-31(1)(2)

One of the factors to be considered in the division of marital property is the value of the property set apart to each spouse. Section 452.330.1(2), RSMo 1978. ... The value of Lauren’s separate real estate on which the mortuary is located must be considered in reviewing the division of marital property and without a current valuation of that property such a review is not possible.

Section 452.330 permits a court dividing marital property to consider improvements to separate property made through joint efforts and funds.

In re the Marriage of Daniel · filed 1982-09-15

Even if the farm was not marital property, the trial court made a “just” disposition as provided in § 452.330, RSMo 1978. Appellant received the farm, the fish on it, and the farm equipment. Respondent received a cash award for her interest in them. The fish and equipment were marital property and in making the award to respondent the court could consider improvements to the farm due to joint efforts and funds, even if the farm was appellant’s separate property.

Property acquired before marriage or in exchange for premarital property remains separate property even if an antenuptial agreement is nullified.

Felkner v. Felkner · filed 1983-04-052(2)

All property wife seeks to divide was either acquired by husband prior to the second marriage or acquired in exchange for such property, and would be husband’s separate property under § 452.330.2, RSMo.1978 even if the antenuptial agreement were nullified.

Section 452.330 treats a gift to both spouses as marital property subject to division.

Forsythe v. Forsythe · filed 1977-06-27(2)(1)

We conclude, rather, that the property was acquired by gift by both spouses jointly, and as such is subject to division as marital property under § 452.330.

Section 452.330 treats property inherited before marriage as separate property that must be set apart from the marital estate.

In re the Marriage of Brethauer · filed 1978-04-28

The court obviously erred in considering and finding that petitioner’s interest in the Illinois farm was marital property. Respondent disclaims any interest in it. Her interest in the farm was acquired by inheritance before the marriage and was therefore her separate property.

Property acquired during marriage and placed in both spouses’ names is marital property even when one spouse contributed the funds from an inheritance.

Boone v. Boone · filed 1982-06-15

Subject to exceptions irrelevant here property acquired by either spouse after marriage and placed in their joint names is marital property.

Section 452.330(2)(1) treats corporate shares acquired by gift as nonmarital property.

Marriage of Norman v. Norman · filed 1980-08-04(2)(1)

So, while the husband owns a one-half interest in the Ava Drug Company because he owns one-half the outstanding corporate shares, his interest in the corporation falls squarely within the exception created by § 452.-330(2)(1); it is nonmarital property as the trial court found.

Section 452.330 treats property owned before marriage as separate property that the dissolution court must set apart to its owner.

McKenna v. McKenna · filed 1980-10-21(2)

Concerning the trial court’s treatment of the résidence as marital property: By Section 452.330.2, RSMo.1978 “marital property” means property acquired after marriage; in contrast, property owned by a spouse before the marriage, as here, is not marital property but is that spouse’s separate property. ... We hold the dwelling here was the husband’s separate property, not marital property, and prima facie the court erred in divesting the husband of his interest.

Section 452.330 treats an interest acquired before marriage as separate property even if legal title is received after marriage.

In Re Marriage of Null · filed 1980-11-25

The term “property” in § 452.330 includes inchoate interests. ... We believe that the husband “acquired” the interest in the property prior to marriage and that the legal title he received after the marriage must relate back to the time of purchase. ... We think the interest that he now has must be held to be his separate property also.

Section 452.330.2 excludes property acquired before marriage from marital property; caring for the grantor during marriage does not convert it to marital property.

In re the Marriage of Davault · filed 1982-07-08.2

That Clarence and Ellen may have taken care of his mother during their marriage would not convert his separate property to marital property.

Property acquired by gift is nonmarital property, including stock given to one spouse by a parent.

In Re the Marriage of Pitluck · filed 1981-05-04(2)(1)

The trial court correctly found that they were Steven’s non-marital property as “property acquired by gift”, § 452.330.2(1), RSMo 1978, and set them over to Steven.

Section 452.330 treats stock acquired in exchange for premarital property or with gifted or inherited property as separate property when the evidence shows the spouses treated it as such.

Salisbury v. Salisbury · filed 1982-06-23(2)

Section 452.330.1, RSMo 1978, requires the court to set apart to each spouse their separate property. Section 452.330.2 provides the exceptions under which property acquired during the marriage becomes marital property. The undisputed evidence in this case is that all of these shares of stock come within the exceptions of property acquired in exchange for property owned prior to the marriage or from property acquired by gift, bequest or devise, and were held in the name of Phyllis alone. The evidence is clear and convincing that both parties treated these shares as the separate property of Phyllis. The court should have set these shares off to Phyllis as her separate property.

Section 452.330 treats property purchased after separation but before the dissolution decree as marital property.

Lynch v. Turner (In Re Lynch) · filed 1983-08-05

The Noble Macaw, on the other hand, was purchased by debtor after the parties separated but before any decree was entered. It is property of the marriage. Section 452.330, R.S.Mo.1973.

Property acquired by gift or in exchange for property owned before marriage is nonmarital property under § 452.330.

In Re Marriage of Kinnick · filed 1981-08-24(2)(1), (2)(2)

Consequently, according to § 452.330-2(1) and (2), supra, John’s undivided ¼⅛ interest in the 160 acres was not marital property.

Section 452.330.2 treats shares produced by a split of stock owned before marriage as nonmarital property because the split is an exchange or appreciation of that property.

In Re Marriage of Bruske · filed 1983-08-09(2)

Exchanges constitute a category of exception under § 452.-330.2, RSMo Supp.1982. Moreover, if it be suggested that the added shares resulting from the stock split constitute a value increment, the obvious reason for any contest over the subject, the nature of the transaction is such that the value is merely an increase by appreciation of the property owned before the marriage. That, too, comes within a category of exception under § 452.330.2, RSMo Supp.1982.

A conveyance made in exchange for lifetime care is not a gift and is marital property if acquired during the marriage.

Cochenour v. Cochenour · filed 1982-11-16(2)(1)

Section 452.330.2, RSMo. 1978, provides that marital property is “all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage except: (1) Property acquired by gift, bequest, devise or descent.” ... We conclude in the circumstances of this case that a conveyance conditioned upon lifetime care and provision for the decedent was not a gift but a contract for services.

Under § 452.330.2, gifted money placed in a joint account remains separate property only if the recipient proves by clear and convincing evidence that no gift to the other spouse was intended.

Dunsford v. Dunsford · filed 1983-08-02(2)

The money represented by the two certificates came from wife’s mother and could be construed as a gift to wife. § 452.330.2 RSMo 1978. But wife transferred the money to a joint account with husband. Wife had the burden of showing this transfer was not intended as a gift to husband. Conrad v. Bowers, 533 S.W.2d 614, 622 (Mo.App.1975) and Tisius v. Tisius, 643 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Mo.App.1982). The subsequent transfer of the certificates to accounts in wife's name only was done by wife without the knowledge and consent of husband. She did not show by clear and convincing evidence the placing of the certificates in joint names was not a settlement of gift to husband. Smith v. Smith, 561 S.W.2d 714, 717 (Mo.App.1978).

Property acquired before marriage remains separate unless the owning spouse clearly intends to contribute it to the marital community.

Busby v. Busby · filed 1984-04-10(3)

The countervailing principle to be considered is that the statute governing the disposition of property in dissolution cases does not prohibit one spouse from making a gift of or contributing to the marital community the property acquired prior to the marriage. ... A “clear intention” to contribute to the community or to the other spouse must be demonstrated.

Section 452.330 requires a court to set aside each spouse’s separate property before dividing marital property.

Weast v. Weast · filed 1984-10-23

This formula was improperly applied in that wife’s separate property was her property and should not have been included in the same category as husband’s marital property and wife’s marital property. Section 452.330, RSMo 1978 requires the trial court to set aside to each spouse his separate property. The marital property is then divided after consideration of all relevant factors.

Section 452.330 permits a court to classify a home purchased before marriage as marital property when the spouses intended it to be their marital home.

Fwh v. Rjh · filed 1984-02-07(1)

The trial court in an action for dissolution of marriage acquires jurisdiction of the property of the spouses for the purposes of determining whether the property is separate or marital property and to set it aside or divide it in accordance with the statute. § 452.330 RSMo (Supp.1982). There was sufficient substantial evidence in this case from which the trial court could find that the parties intended the house to be marital property. There was testimony that the property was purchased in contemplation of marriage and was intended to be used as the marital home.

Section 452.330.2(1) treats inherited property as separate property when marital funds pay a loan used to settle a will contest rather than to acquire the property.

Marriage of Rickard v. Rickard · filed 1985-04-16(2)(1)

The loan here was not utilized to make payment for the property, it was made to settle a lawsuit. The court recognized the marital contribution to the payment of that debt by its award of $5,000 to the wife. Under Sec. 452.330.2 (1) RSMo 1978, the property came to the husband by inheritance and was therefore separate property.

Section 452.330.2(2) excludes property acquired in exchange for premarital property from the marital estate.

Marriage of Bizzell v. Bizzell · filed 1985-09-10(2)(2)

The transactions clearly fall under the exception from marital property of “Property acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the marriage_” Sec. 452.330.-2(2) RSMo 1978.

Section 452.330.2 permits a court to look beyond a deed to determine whether property acquired during marriage is exempt from division; a spouse seeking to overcome joint title must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the property was intended for that spouse alone.

O'Neal v. O'Neal · filed 1985-12-17(2)(1)

However, Section 452.330.2 RSMo authorizes a court to look behind the deed of property acquired during marriage to determine if it was acquired by a method which would make the property exempt from division by the court. Thus, to overcome the language of the deed, the husband must show by clear and convincing evidence that the fifty-acre tract was intended for his title alone.

Section 452.330 allows a spouse to share in the increased value of gifted property attributable to uncompensated marital effort, but requires proof of that effort.

Marriage of Heilman v. Heilman · filed 1985-12-17(2)(1)

Then as now, the characterization of property as either marital or separate in the context of dissolution was governed by § 452.330, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1984. ... Absent proof of uncompensated marital effort, therefore, the wife could not take advantage of the source of funds rule. The same lack of proof is present in this case.

Section 452.330.2 treats stock received in exchange for a premarital partnership interest or as a gift as separate property.

Milde v. Milde · filed 1986-12-09(2)

The partnership was formed prior to the marriage and the corporate stock was in exchange for the partnership interest or ... as to 6.67% of the total corporate stock, was a gift from husband’s parents to him. As such the stock was separate property under the statute.

Section 452.330(2) allows a spouse to overcome the presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital property by proving it was a gift.

Townsend v. Townsend · filed 1986-01-21(2)

The presumption of marital property is overcome by a showing that the property was acquired by gift. § 452.330.2 RSMo Cum.Supp. 1984; 670 S.W.2d at 523. ... We find the other articles of property were acquired by gift from husband and affirm the trial court’s award of those items.

Section 452.330.2(1) treats property acquired by gift during marriage as separate property.

Sr v. Smr · filed 1986-04-15(2)(1)

Property acquired by gift during the marriage is separate property. § 452.330.2(1). Husband's initial acquisition of the stock of Store 1 was by gift and was therefore his separate property.

A spouse may turn separate property into marital property by agreement or gift, after which it is subject to division.

Tubbs v. Tubbs · filed 1988-07-26

A spouse may by agreement or by gift transmute separate property into marital property. ... The wife’s interest in the three acres on which the house and bam were built became marital property through transmutation.

Section 452.330(2) excludes property received in exchange for property acquired before marriage from marital property.

In re Garner · filed 1987-12-29(2)

Section 452.330(2) R.S.Mo. 1978 provides that "... property acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to marriage ...” is not marital property.

Under § 452.330, corporate shares transferred to a spouse as a gift are that spouse’s separate property even when estate planning or business purposes motivated the transfer.

McDonough v. McDonough · filed 1988-12-20(2)(1)

Section 452.330 RSMo (1986) provides that “[p]roperty acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent” does not constitute marital property. ... Although the record indicates that respondent was motivated by estate-planning and business purposes, not expressly to make a gift to the separate property of appellant, the law is clear that the transaction made was a gift to the separate property of the appellant.

Stock received as a gift remains nonmarital property when converted into a promissory note through a sale.

In re the Marriage of Wild · filed 1989-07-26(2)(1), (2)(2)

The conversion of the stock to cash and a promissory note did not affect the status of the note as Steve’s personal property.

Section 452.330.4 preserves separate property despite mere commingling with marital property, but does not change the presumption that property placed in joint names is marital.

Doll v. Doll · filed 1991-09-10(4)

However, the 1988 amendment does not alter the effect of joint title of property. Property acquired after marriage which is placed in joint names is presumed to be marital property, even if one spouse furnished all of the consideration.

Inherited property overcomes the presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital, but placing it in both spouses’ names can show an intent to make it marital property.

Wilson v. Wilson · filed 1991-11-26(2)(1)

Because wife received by inheritance the property she now contends is separate, she has overcome the statutory presumption that the property is marital. However, placing the certificates of deposit in both husband’s and wife’s names is evidence of wife’s donative intent to create marital property.

Section 452.330.4 does not preserve inherited property's separate status when the spouses place it in a jointly controlled revocable trust; that treatment is more than mere commingling.

Race v. Race · filed 1992-02-14(4)

The execution of the Race Family Trust placed broad powers in Betty and John, both as settlors with power to revoke and as trustees with power to control the trust assets. This treatment of the challenged securities constituted more than “mere commingling.”

Section 452.330 excludes a valid inter vivos gift from marital property; the gift requires present donative intent, delivery, and acceptance.

In Re Marriage of Johnson · filed 1993-07-08(2)(1)

The marital property disposition statute, § 452.330, does not establish a category of gift separate from the common law inter vivos gift. ... The essential elements for a valid inter vivos gift are (1) a present intention to make a gift on the part of the donor, (2) a delivery of the property by donor to donee, and (3) an acceptance by donee, whose ownership takes effect immediately and absolutely.

Section 452.330 treats property acquired before marriage as separate property, but joint title and commingling can create a rebuttable presumption that the owner gave it to the marriage.

Butler v. Butler · filed 1994-03-08

Generally, property acquired before the marriage would be separate property. § 452.330, RSMo Supp.1993. However, placing it into a jointly titled bank account during the marriage may give rise to transmutation into marital property by gift. ... Therefore, a presumption arose Husband intended the money as a gift to the marriage. Husband presented no evidence at trial of a contrary intent. The trial court erred in finding the $6,000 was Husband’s separate property and we reverse.

Section 452.330 excludes property acquired in exchange for premarital property from marital property when its source is traced.

Sprock v. Sprock · filed 1994-06-14(2)(2)

Mr. Sprock overcame the statutory presumption, that property acquired during marriage is marital property, by tracing the source of funds used to purchase the farm. Property acquired in exchange for property acquired before marriage is not marital property.

Section 452.330 allows a dissolution court to consider how property was conveyed when deciding whether to set it apart as one spouse’s separate property.

Crosby v. Crosby · filed 1997-02-25

Again, the trial court has the authority under § 452.330 to determine the status of the property, marital or separate, and then divide it in an equitable manner. ... Upon considering all relevant statutory factors, the court properly determined the Highway B property should be set apart to Wife.

Section 452.330.4 allows a spouse to establish that commingled funds are separate property by tracing their source with substantial evidence.

Friedman v. Friedman · filed 1998-02-17(4)

The trial court’s determination was supported by substantial evidence because Roger sustained his burden of tracing the commingled funds.

Section 452.330 requires a court to consider each spouse’s separate property when making a fair and equitable division of marital property.

Ludwinski v. Ludwinski · filed 1998-06-30(1)

A trial court must consider the parties’ separate property in arriving at an equitable and fair division of the marital property. Section 452.330 RSMo Cum.Supp.1996.

Inherited property is generally separate, but placing it in both spouses’ names presumptively makes it marital property unless clear and convincing evidence shows no gift was intended.

Clark v. Clark · filed 1996-03-14(2)(1)

Undoubtedly, the proceeds from the sale of Husband’s mother’s house were initially Husband’s separate property, as described by the exception in subsection (1). However, placing separate property into the joint names of both spouses creates a presumption that the property has been transmuted into marital property, and clear and convincing evidence is required to show that the transfer was not intended as a gift.

Section 452.330.2 does not make separately held corporate stock marital property merely because marital assets secured the corporation’s loans, when no marital funds repaid them.

Klaus v. Klaus · filed 1996-04-02(2)

The claim for non-marital property was rejected because marital funds had been used solely as security and were not expended to repay any loan owed by the separately held corporation. The same factors are present in the instant case and warrant the same result.

Property acquired by gift during marriage is separate property under § 452.330.2(1).

Bullard v. Bullard · filed 1996-08-27(2)(1)

Therefore, we find that although the parties were married when Wife received the car, the evidence supports a finding that the 1988 Chevrolet Celebrity was a gift made specifically to Wife by her parents. As such, it is exempted marital property classification pursuant to § 452.330.2(1) RSMo 1994.

Section 452.330.2(2) excludes property acquired in exchange for premarital property from marital property.

McGilley v. McGilley · filed 1997-06-30(2)(2)

In addition, under § 452.330.2(2), the trial court erred in dividing both Casa II and the Piper Jaffray account as marital property because property acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the marriage is not marital property.

Property bought and paid for before marriage remains separate under § 452.330.2 unless its status changes through marital funding, gift, agreement, or intent to make it marital.

In Re Marriage of Nored · filed 1998-06-24(2)

“Marital property” is all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to, the marriage, and not subject to one of the listed exceptions in Section 452.330.2, RSMo. ... As there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s award of the camper as marital property, Point II is granted.

Section 452.330 excludes property received by one spouse as a gift from marital property.

Jezewak v. Jezewak · filed 1999-08-31(2)(1)

Here, the record reveals that the bedroom suite in question was given to wife as a gift from wife’s mother, and thus separate property of the wife. Accordingly, the court erred in awarding it to wife as household goods, as part of her portion of marital property.

Commingling nonmarital and marital property does not convert the nonmarital property into marital property unless its owner intended the conversion.

Pearson v. Pearson · filed 2000-01-18(4)

A commingling of nonmari-tal and marital property will not transmute nonmarital property into marital property unless the owner intended to convert the nonmarital property to marital property.

Section 452.330 presumes property acquired during marriage is marital property, but a gift is excluded; a claimed gift must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Boschert v. Boschert · filed 2002-04-30(2), (3)

This presumption is overcome by showing that the property was acquired by a method listed in subsection 2, which provides in pertinent part: “marital property” means all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage except property acquired by gift, bequest, devise or descent. ... Contrary to wife’s assertion, we find no clear and convincing evidence indicating that husband’s contribution for the basement was intended to be a gift.

Section 452.330 requires courts to distinguish marital from separate property, but a gift can turn separate property into marital property and defeat a claim for a setoff.

McAllister v. McAllister · filed 2003-01-28

In a dissolution proceeding, the court is required to determine what property before it is separate and what is marital, set apart to each spouse each spouse's non-marital property, and divide the marital property as it deems just. ... As the court found that any alleged separate property had been transmuted into marital property, Husband did not have a non-marital interest in the Partridge Run residence, and thus was not entitled to a setoff.

Section 452.330 treats property acquired during marriage in exchange for separate property acquired before marriage as nonmarital property.

Comninellis v. Comninellis · filed 2003-03-112(2)

Property acquired subsequent to marriage in exchange for property acquired prior to marriage is not marital property. ... Because the yacht was property acquired subsequent to marriage in exchange for separate property acquired prior to marriage, the yacht is Husband’s separate nonmarital property.

Section 452.330.4 provides that commingling alone does not turn separate property into marital property; the owner's intent to convert it controls.

Dkh v. Lrg · filed 2003-04-15(4)

Non-marital property does not become marital property "solely because it may have become commingled with marital property," however. Section 452.330.4. Rather, the owner's intent to convert the property to marital property is the determining factor. ... The trial court did not err in finding Wife's interest in the contract for deed to be Wife's separate property.

Section 452.330.4 says commingling alone does not turn separate property into marital property, but a spouse must trace separate funds through a commingled account to establish that they remain separate.

Marriage of Maninger v. Maninger · filed 2003-05-20(4)

Although section 452.330.4 provides that commingling, in and of itself, is insufficient to transmute separate property into marital property, we have held that a trial court does not err in finding an account to be marital where a spouse has commingled an inheritance and repeatedly reinvested the commingled funds and cannot sustain his burden of tracing his separate funds.

Income earned during marriage from premarital property, including interest and dividends, is marital property even when the original investment remains separate.

Greiner v. Greiner · filed 2004-10-19(2)(5)

Thus, Wife’s pre-marital $500 investment may be properly characterized as her separate property, but any interest or dividends she earned from the account during the marriage became part of the marital estate.

Section 452.330.2(1) treats a gifted future interest in property as separate property, even when it is subject to a life estate.

Tambone v. Tambone · filed 2004-11-16(2)(1)

It is apparent, the trial court believed Husband when he alleged he would receive his interest in the New Jersey property only after his mother passed away. The gift from his aunt clearly falls within a separate property exception. Section 452.330.2(1).

Section 452.330.4 preserves a separate property interest after commingling when clear and convincing evidence traces an identifiable portion to separate property.

Andrews v. Andrews · filed 2009-05-12(4)

In addition, section 452.330.4 specifically states that nonmarital property does not become marital property solely because it is commingled with marital property. Instead, onee commingling occurs, the party claiming a separate property interest must establish by clear and convincing evidence that an identifiable portion can be traced to specific separate property. ... Here, although wife did commingle her separate property with marital property, there is clear and convincing evidence of an identifiable portion of the marital property that can be traced to wife's separate property.

Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital, but clear and convincing evidence that it was a gift can establish it as separate property.

McFall v. McFall · filed 2008-10-17(2)(1) and (3)

Property acquired during marriage, even in one spouse’s name, is presumed marital, but the presumption can be overcome by showing the property was a gift. ... Such showing requires clear and convincing evidence.

Section 452.330.2 treats an engagement ring given before marriage as the recipient’s separate property, outside the marital property division.

Susan Fike, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Paul Fike, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. · filed 2016-10-11.2

Under § 452.330.2, marital property is limited to property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage. ... Because the ruling is not supported by substantial evidence and the weight of the evidence demonstrates the ring is Wife’s nonmarital property, the court misapplied the law and erred in awarding Husband the two stones.

Section 452.330 requires a trial court to consider, evaluate, and allocate a potentially valuable retirement plan when dividing marital property; failure to do so prevents a final, appealable judgment.

Nilges v. Nilges · filed 1978-01-31

In failing to consider a potentially valuable asset, evaluate and allocate it as required by § 452.330, RSMo Supp.1975, the trial court failed to enter a final, appealable judgment.

Section 452.330 permits a spouse to receive a share of a retirement-plan distribution already paid to the other spouse.

Hurtgen v. Hurtgen · filed 1982-05-11

The trial court properly awarded wife one-half of a present distribution ($2,000.00) of husband’s retirement plan. Husband was awarded his retirement plan, but this sum of $2,000.00 was previously paid to husband in cash.

Section 452.330 treats vested retirement benefits earned during the marriage as marital property for division.

Cregan v. Clark · filed 1983-09-27

All the benefits had been earned during his TWA employment during the marriage. It was fully vested at the time of trial. ... In such a case the retirement plan benefits are marital property and must be dealt with as such by the trial court.

Section 452.330 treats vested interests in profit sharing and retirement plans as marital property, but excludes interests that are contingent or subject to divestment.

Marriage of Busch v. Busch · filed 1981-06-02

It is admitted that if wife’s interest in the plans had vested, both plans were marital property. However, if wife’s interest in the plans were either contingent or subject to divestment, the plans are not marital property.

Section 452.330 permits courts to treat pension benefits, including contingent and non-matured benefits, as marital property when dividing assets.

Kuchta v. Kuchta · filed 1982-08-02

Nothing would be gained by recitals thereof as we need only recognize that the trial court properly considered “pension benefits” as marital property, and we find nothing in the record that consideration thereof was made in disregard of prospective and contingent “non-matured” possibilities presented to it.

Section 452.330 requires a just and equitable division of marital property that considers each spouse’s economic circumstances, including whether pension payments depend on retirement.

Alvino v. Alvino · filed 1983-08-09(1)(3)

It is always a difficult task for the trial court to follow the mandate of the statute, § 452.330 RSMo.1978, to make the property division just and equitable, having regard for the statutory factors to be taken into consideration. ... With this goal in mind, we conclude that the division of property was not just. ... Forceable retirement is not just and not economically sound.

Section 452.330 permits a court to divide marital pension benefits by awarding a spouse a share when and if the benefits are received.

Marriage of Lynch v. Lynch · filed 1983-12-20

We therefore hold that the award of part of the retirement benefits of the husband to the wife, when and if such benefits are received, satisfied the trial court’s responsibility to justly divide the marital property under § 452.330, RSMo (1978).

Section 452.330 guides the division of previously undistributed military retired pay, including consideration of the dissolution evidence and marital property already distributed.

Marriage Sink v. Sink · filed 1984-04-17

We reverse and remand. We express no opinion as to how the military retired pay should be distributed. In making that determination the court will be guided by the evidence presented at the dissolution hearing, any additional relevant evidence that the parties may present, the other marital property of the parties that was distributed in the decree, the value of all marital property and any other matters relevant to complying with § 452.330 RSMo 1978.

Section 452.330 permits an award of one-third of a vested pension’s present value despite a relatively small period of premarital service when the employee spouse’s misconduct supports the division.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 1984-05-29

The four years of prior employment is but one-seventh of the 28 years of total service, and is thus relatively negligible. The contention would have more merit if the trial court had set off 50% or more of the pension value to respondent, but it gave only one-third of that present value to her. In view of the extensive evidence of appellant’s misconduct (which need not be here set forth in detail), the trial court did not err in dividing marital property under the standards of § 452.330, RSMo (amended, L.1981, p. 615, § 1).

Section 452.330 requires a just division of marital property; a pension division that places all future contingencies on the employee spouse is inconsistent with that requirement.

Weiss v. Weiss · filed 1986-01-07

Section 452.330, supra, mandates that marital property be divided “in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors including” those thereinafter enumerated. A division of pension benefits which places the risk of all future contingencies on an employee-spouse alone is inconsistent with a “just” division of marital property.

Section 452.330(1) does not classify Social Security benefits as marital or nonmarital property, but courts may consider them as economic factors when dividing marital property.

Rudden v. Rudden · filed 1989-02-28(1)

While social security benefits do not fall within our state law definitions of marital or separate property (now marital or nonmarital property, § 452.330.1, RSMo Supp.1988), they are clearly defined by federal statutes.

Section 452.330 requires the dissolution court to consider a military pension as marital property but does not require the pension to be divided between the spouses.

Parr v. Parr · filed 1989-05-16

Section 452.330, RSMo 1986, requires that the dissolution court distribute all martial property between the parties. ... The law does not require that the military pension benefits be divided, only that they are considered part of the marital property.

Section 452.330.2 requires a spouse’s interest in a marital 401(k) plan to be considered and valued when dividing marital property.

Roth v. Roth · filed 1990-06-292

Under § 452.330.2 RSMo 1988 she has an interest in all marital property which includes the plan. It should have been considered and evaluated and, if necessary, apportioned by the trial court. On remand, the trial court should make the appropriate distribution.

Section 452.330.5 permits a court to retain jurisdiction to establish or maintain a marital property award as a qualified domestic relations order and revise its terms to carry out the order’s intent.

May v. May · filed 1990-12-11(5)

The decree specifically provides that this award is intended to be a qualified domestic relations order and that the court retains jurisdiction to give effect to this intent pursuant to § 452.330.5 RSMo (Supp.1988). Under that section QDRO’s are modifiable for the purpose of “establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of order.”

The share of a pension plan attributable to contributions made before marriage is separate property.

Daniele v. Daniele · filed 1993-03-23

The percentage of contributions made by husband to his pension plan prior to his marriage represents the percentage of the plan’s present value at dissolution which should be characterized as his separate non-marital property.

Section 452.330 permits more than one motion to modify a qualified domestic relations order for specified purposes, but a party cannot relitigate the same basis for modification.

Walker v. Walker · filed 1997-08-12

While Section 452.330 allows for more than one attempt to modify a QDRO, it may be done only for the purpose of “establishing or maintaining the order as a qualified domestic relations order or to revise or conform its terms so as to effectuate the expressed intent of the order.” However, a party cannot file a motion to modify, asserting the same basis for modification in each motion, and ignore the doctrines of res judi-cata and collateral estoppel in the process.

Section 452.330 permits a court to classify retirement account contributions and earnings as marital property when the spouse claiming a separate share fails to prove the amount contributed before marriage.

Taylor v. Taylor · filed 2000-02-15(2)

Based on the lack of specific evidence surrounding the retirement contributions, the court’s determination that $15,000 represented Husband’s share in the 401k plan, and that the remaining contributions and earnings were marital, was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 452.330.1 requires a just division of marital property and permits a court to award a spouse half the marital portion of the other spouse’s pension.

Farris v. Farris · filed 2002-05-21(1)

Given this property division, which was favorable to Husband, the trial court’s award to Wife of fifty percent of the marital portion of Husband’s Southwestern Bell pension was not an abuse of discretion and did not render the division of property unduly weighted in favor of Wife.

Section 452.330.1(3) allows a court to consider a spouse’s teacher retirement account when dividing marital property, but the account may not materially affect the division.

Bohon v. Bohon · filed 2003-04-151(3)

However, in the case of teacher pension benefits, the court is not permitted to consider the retirement account in such a manner as to “materially impact” the division of property. ... Thus, Wife’s teacher retirement account and this factor, alone, had a substantial material impact on the manner in which the trial court determined the amount of marital property apportioned to each party. Accordingly, that portion of the trial court’s judgment dividing the marital property and debt is in error and is reversed with directions to the trial court to more equitably divide both between Husband and Wife.