Sanders v. Sanders

11 Citing cases

  1. Clance v. Clance

    127 S.W.3d 716 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    Warner v. Warner, 46 S.W.3d 591, 594 (Mo. App. 2001) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)). The evidence and permissible inferences therefrom will be viewed in the light most favorable to the decree without consideration of contrary evidence and inferences. Sanders v. Sanders, 933 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Mo. App. 1996). "`The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error,' and this court defers `to the trial court's decision, even if the evidence could support a contrary conclusion.'"

  2. State ex rel. Koster v. Cain

    383 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 29 times

    Thus, at the time the garnishment application was filed, the amount the State had agreed to accept in satisfaction of its judgment was capable of ascertainment from the record. See Cross v. Cross, 30 S.W.3d 233, 236–37 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (holding that judgment which ordered parties to pay certain debts but which did not list the amount of each debt was sufficiently definite to be enforced by execution where record of evidence at trial included the specific amounts of each debt); Sanders v. Sanders, 933 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (holding that an “obscure judgment ... may be construed with reference to the pleadings and record, and where on the whole record its sense can be clearly ascertained, the judgment will be upheld”). If Law Firm and Cain disputed the amount the garnishment sought to collect because it was not supported by the record, they were free to move to quash the garnishment on this basis.

  3. Cosby v. Cosby

    291 S.W.3d 795 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming trial court’s award of attorney’s fees when the trial court had evidence that "the vast majority of the wife’s attorney’s fees were incurred due to the conduct of the husband and his former counsel" and "husband committed domestic violence during the marriage against both the wife and the parties’ son, which directly contributed to the marriage’s breakdown."

    Id. Furthermore, the husband testified that he paid off the loan on the truck during the marriage. Property is acquired as it is paid for, and the Supreme Court has defined the term "acquired" as an ongoing process of making payments for property. Sanders v. Sanders, 933 S.W.2d 898, 901 (Mo.App. E.D. 1996). The trial court erred in determining that the Ford truck was a gift to the wife and in awarding it as her separate property.

  4. Kolar v. Kolar

    114 S.W.3d 440 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 11 times

    "Generally, for a decree or judgment to be enforceable, it must be definite and certain." Sanders v. Sanders, 933 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Mo.App. 1996). Because of the confusion surrounding this provision, we are remanding this case to the circuit court so it can clarify what it was attempting to accomplish in this provision.

  5. Rice v. Rice

    111 S.W.3d 421 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)

    Husband brings several points on appeal challenging the division and valuation of marital and separate property and the awarding of child custody to Wife. Wife filed a motion to dismiss Husband's appeal for failure to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in Rule 84.04 which was taken with the case. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the trial court committed no error. Sanders v. Sanders, 933 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Mo.App.E.D. 1996). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.

  6. Comninellis v. Comninellis

    99 S.W.3d 502 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 25 times
    Finding no error in setting aside corporate assets to husband as his separate property where corporation was a party, while noting general rule that "a court may not exercise control over property belonging to a corporation, even if one of the spouses is the sole shareholder of that corporation."

    "Property is considered to be acquired as it is paid for, not when title passes." Sanders v. Sanders , 933 S.W.2d 898, 901 (Mo.App.E.D. 1996) (citing Moritz v. Moritz , 844 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Mo.App.W.D. 1992)). When applying the "source of funds" rule to determine whether acquired property is marital or nonmarital, the term "acquired" has been defined as "an on-going process of making payments for the acquired property."

  7. Muenz v. Muenz

    99 S.W.3d 4 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 13 times
    In Muenz, the husband appealed, inter alia., from an amended judgment of dissolution in which the trial court distributed the marital portion of the wife's defined benefit plan equally between the parties in a QDRO but assigned no value to the plan, leaving the husband unable to determine the value of his interest.

    The amended judgment assigns no value to the marital portion of wife's defined benefit plan, however, we look to the record for further information. Sanders v. Sanders, 933 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Mo.App.E.D. 1996). Reviewing the record, we find there was evidence that the plan may have been worth $80,000 at the time of trial, had wife retired by January 1, 2001, and had taken a lump sum.

  8. Bond v. Bond

    77 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 11 times

    A dissolution decree must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence, it is not against the weight of the evidence, and it neither erroneously declares nor applies the law. Sanders v. Sanders, 933 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Mo.App.E.D. 1996). We must accept as true all evidence and permissible inferences in the light most favorable to the decree and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. Swyers v. Swyers, 34 S.W.3d 848, 849 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000).

  9. Oetterer v. Oetterer

    60 S.W.3d 48 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that specific findings as to the classification of property are necessary to determine whether a division of property and debt is fair and equitable

    We are well aware that an obscure judgment may be construed with reference to the pleadings and record, and "where on the whole record its sense can be clearly ascertained, the judgment will be upheld." Sanders v. Sanders, 933 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Mo.App.E.D. 1996). However, reference to the pleadings and the record does not provide us with a clear indication of the status of these assets.

  10. In Interest of B.J.M.T. ex rel. McClure v. Teff

    21 S.W.3d 154 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    Id. at 32. Generally, where the enforcement of a judgment is conditional upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of future acts, the performance or nonperformance of which is outside the record, the judgment is deemed indefinite and unenforceable. Sanders v.Sanders , 933 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Mo.App.E.D. 1996). "A conditional judgment, that is one whose enforcement is dependent upon the performance of future acts by a litigant and which is to be annulled if default occurs, is void."