Meservey v. Meservey
841 S.W.2d 240, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1512, 1992 WL 230171 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The increase in value of a spouse's separate property is marital property only if it resulted from uncompensated or inadequately compensated marital labor, and the spouse claiming a share must provide comprehensive substantiation proving a direct causal link between that labor and the specific increase in value.
Facts:
- Ralph Warren Meservey and Janice Sue Meservey were married for twenty-seven years, during which they lived on a farm and had five children.
- Janice Meservey was primarily responsible for homemaking and child-rearing, and also performed substantial uncompensated labor for the family farming operation, including gardening, raising chickens, feeding livestock, and operating machinery.
- Ralph Meservey worked for Marshall Meservey Farms, Inc., a closely-held family corporation established by his parents.
- During the marriage, both Ralph and Janice acquired shares in the corporation through gifts and inheritance from Ralph's parents; Ralph owned 453 shares and Janice owned 18.
- After his parents' deaths, Ralph, along with his brother, assumed daily operation and management of the corporation.
- Ralph received compensation for his services to the corporation in the form of a salary and bonuses, amounting to approximately $33,000 per year.
- The value of the corporate stock increased significantly between the time it was acquired and the couple's separation in 1987.
Procedural Posture:
- Janice Sue Meservey and Ralph Warren Meservey's marriage was dissolved in a Missouri state trial court.
- The trial court issued a dissolution decree that classified a portion of the increase in value of the spouses' separately owned corporate stock as marital property and divided it between them.
- The trial court awarded the physical stock to Mr. Meservey and awarded Ms. Meservey a money judgment for her share of the marital property, including the stock's appreciation.
- Ralph Warren Meservey, as appellant, appealed the trial court's property distribution to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
- Janice Sue Meservey, as appellee, filed a cross-appeal, also challenging the property distribution.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the increase in value of a spouse's separate property, specifically inherited corporate stock, become marital property when that increase is attributable to the owner-spouse's compensated labor for the corporation and the other spouse's uncompensated efforts as a homemaker and farm wife?
Opinions:
Majority - Ulrich, Judge.
No. The increase in value of separate property remains separate property unless the increase was acquired through marital funds or substantial, inadequately compensated marital labor that is directly linked to the appreciation. Here, the stock shares were separate property acquired by gift and inheritance. While Janice Meservey contributed significant labor to the family farming operation, she failed to prove a direct connection between her services and the increase in the value of the corporate stock. Ralph Meservey's labor for the corporation was fully compensated through his salary and bonuses, which were marital assets. Because the marital partnership already benefited from his labor through his income, his spouse cannot also claim a proportionate share of the enhanced value of his separate stock on the basis of that same labor without showing he was inadequately compensated to build equity in the stock.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high evidentiary burden required under the 'source of funds' rule to transmute the appreciation of separate property into marital property. It establishes that general contributions to the marriage, even substantial ones like those of a homemaker and farm wife, are insufficient without proof of a direct causal link to the asset's appreciation. Furthermore, it prevents a 'double dip' by clarifying that when one spouse's labor for a separate entity is fairly compensated with a salary (which becomes marital property), the other spouse cannot also claim an interest in the appreciation of the underlying separate asset absent proof of under-compensation.
