Opinion
WD 82747
04-21-2020
Eric Jack RILEY, Respondent, v. Eroica Cyani (Riley) O'NEAL, Appellant.
David G. Bandre', Jefferson City for respondent. Andrew J. Sartorius, Jefferson City for appellant.
David G. Bandre', Jefferson City for respondent.
Andrew J. Sartorius, Jefferson City for appellant.
Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, P.J., and Alok Ahuja, and Gary D. Witt, JJ.
ORDER
PER CURIAM: The marriage of Eroica O'Neill and Eric Riley was dissolved in 2013. A separation agreement incorporated into their dissolution decree provided that O'Neill would continue to reside in the marital home, but that she and Riley would continue to own the property as tenants in common. The separation agreement further provided that when the home was sold or the mortgage was refinanced, the proceeds would be equally divided between O'Neill and Riley, after deducting closing costs and certain home-related expenses O'Neill had incurred.
Ms. O'Neill's last name is spelled "O'Neal" in the case caption and in the Court's docket, but the parties uniformly spell her name "O'Neill." We do likewise.
--------
In 2018, Riley filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cole County against O'Neill seeking to partition the property by sale so that he could recover his share of the home's equity. Riley later quit-claimed his interest in the property to O'Neill so she could refinance the mortgage. The parties agreed that the circuit court would proceed with an evidentiary hearing to determine the division of the refinancing proceeds pursuant to the separation agreement. The circuit court found that O'Neill owed Riley $34,492.33 pursuant to the separation agreement, in addition to $3,302.47 for his attorney's fees. O'Neill appeals. She argues that the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to dismiss the partition suit as moot after Riley conveyed his interest in the property to her. Next, she contends that the circuit court erred in its division of the refinancing proceeds. Finally O'Neill argues that the circuit court erred in awarding Riley attorney's fees.
We affirm. Because we conclude that this appeal is frivolous, we assess a sanction of $1,000 against O'Neill to be paid to Riley under Rule 84.19. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).