This Court has held that “a trial court awarding maintenance and attorney's fees must consider the current ‘financial resources' of the parties.” Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 698 (Mo.App.E.D.2010) (citing McCallum v. McCallum, 128 S.W.3d 62, 67 (Mo.App.E.D.2003) ). Here. the evidence upon which the trial court relied in the Amended Judgment is too remote in time to have allowed the trial court to base its judgment on the current financial resources of Mother and Father. Seventeen months passed between the end of trial and the entry of the Amended Judgment. Given this substantial lapse in time.
Even where a trial court erred in failing to ensure a reasonable proximity between the date of valuation and the date of distribution of marital assets, we will only reverse the judgment "when the error is material—that is, there must be facts in the record from which potential prejudice reasonably could be inferred and each case is therefore fact specific." Schubert v. Schubert, 366 S.W.3d 55, 73 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (internal quotation omitted); Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 698 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (internal citation omitted). B. Analysis
. In support of her argument, Wife cites Courtney v. Courtney, 458 S.W.3d 462 (Mo.App.E.D.2015) and Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692 (Mo.App.E.D.2010). In Meier, we held that the trial court erred when, in its final judgment distributing the marital property, it used valuation data that was between fifteen to twenty-one months old to determine the parties' share of the marital property.
While Mark is correct that an increase in value of separate property due to appreciation remains separate property, Mark's argument ignores the principal that this exception only applies to the extent that marital assets have not contributed to the increase. See Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 702 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). “Dividends and interest earned on separate property during a marriage are marital property.”
This Court has held that “a trial court awarding maintenance and attorney's fees must consider the current ‘financial resources' of the parties.” Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 698 (Mo.App.E.D.2010) (citing McCallum v. McCallum, 128 S.W.3d 62, 67 (Mo.App.E.D.2003) ). Here. the evidence upon which the trial court relied in the Amended Judgment is too remote in time to have allowed the trial court to base its judgment on the current financial resources of Mother and Father. Seventeen months passed between the end of trial and the entry of the Amended Judgment. Given this substantial lapse in time.
However, “[w]hether a trial court adds a claimed depreciation deduction to a spouse's gross income is within the court's discretion.” Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). Further, the trial court did consider the fair market value of the equipment.
The trial court has broad discretion in identifying, valuing, and dividing marital property. Cule v. Cule, 457 S.W.3d 858, 864–65 (Mo.App.E.D. 2015); Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 701 (Mo.App.E.D. 2010). “We presume that the trial court's division of property is correct, and the party opposing the division bears the burden of overcoming this presumption.”
"However, ‘[o]nce commingling occurs, the party claiming separate property has the burden of establishing that an identifiable portion of the funds can be traced to specific nonmarital assets.’ " Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 702 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (quoting In re Marriage of Looney, 286 S.W.3d 832, 837 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) ); see Moore, 189 S.W.3d at 637–38. Here, Husband’s belated argument that only his military pension was used for mortgage payments is unavailing.
A party challenging the validity of the original judgment on direct appeal is not necessarily precluded from a concurrent attempt to modify the original judgment. See Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 699 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) ; State ex rel. State of Kan. Soc. & Rehab. Servs. v. R.L.P., 157 S.W.3d 268, 272–73 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005). However, after the direct appeal of the original judgment is resolved, an action that recognizes and asserts the validity of the underlying judgment is necessarily inconsistent with later arguing that the original judgment was void.
The trial court has broad discretion in identifying, valuing, and dividing marital property. Cule v. Cule, 457 S.W.3d 858, 864–65 (Mo.App.E.D. 2015); Meier v. Meier, 306 S.W.3d 692, 701 (Mo.App.E.D. 2010). “We presume that the trial court's division of property is correct, and the party opposing the division bears the burden of overcoming this presumption.”