Kaderly v. Kaderly

Full title: SANDRA KADERLY, APPELLANT, v. KEVIN KADERLY, RESPONDENT.

Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Third Division

Date published: Dec 13, 2022

No. WD84855 (Mo. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2022)

Opinion

WD84855

12-13-2022

SANDRA KADERLY, APPELLANT, v. KEVIN KADERLY, RESPONDENT.

Attorneys: Kristin D. Siegel, Lees Summit, MO for appellant. Jonathan Sternberg, Kansas City, MO for respondent.

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Appeal From: Jackson County Circuit Court The Honorable Susan E. Long, Judge Appellate Judges:

Attorneys: Kristin D. Siegel, Lees Summit, MO for appellant.

Jonathan Sternberg, Kansas City, MO for respondent. 1

Before Judges: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge, and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

OPINION

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Sandra Kaderly appeals from the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Kevin Kaderly. Ms. Kaderly claims that the trial court committed error in concluding that half of the proceeds from the sale of her court reporting business were marital property, and alternatively erred in determining that the increase in value of the business during the marriage was attributable to contributions by Ms. Kaderly and Mr. Kaderly.

AFFIRMED.

Division Three holds:

1. While Ms. Kaderly owned 100 percent of a corporation that itself held 50 percent of the court reporting business prior to the marriage, a series of transactions took place during the marriage that resulted in Ms. Kaderly personally becoming the 100 percent owner of the court reporting business. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a 50 percent interest in the court reporting business was marital property subject to division.

2. Contrary to Ms. Kaderly's assertion that 50 percent of the court reporting business she acquired during the marriage was acquired with only non-marital property, Ms. Kaderly burdened the marriage with additional debt in partial consideration for the acquisition. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Wife's position that the additional 50 percent interest in the court reporting business was acquired with only nonmarital property.

3. The increase in value of the court reporting business during the marriage is not relevant, as that inquiry would only be relevant if the entirety of Ms. Kaderly's interest in the court reporting business was non-marital property. Ms. Kaderly's remaining points on appeal addressing these findings are denied as moot.

This summary is UNOFFICIAL and should not be quoted or cited. 2