Disposition of property and debts, factors to be considered

(L. 1973 H.B. 315 § 7, A.L. 1981 H.B. 96, A.L. 1988 H.B. 1272, et al., A.L. 1996 S.B. 869, A.L. 1998 S.B. 910) *Word "the" does not appear in original rolls. (1975) Rights acquired under a contract to purchase land constitute "property" and "marital property" and are subject to division by the court in a dissolution of marriage. Claunch v. Claunch (A.), 525 S.W.2d 788. (1976) All property acquired subsequent to marriage taken in joint names is marital property subject to division upon dissolution unless (1) it is shown that such property was acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the marriage, and (2) it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the transfer was not intended as a provision for a settlement upon or as a gift to the other spouse. Conrad v. Bowers (A.), 533 S.W.2d 614. (1976) For the purposes of this division of marital property under this section, the "conduct" of the parties during the marriage is a relevant factor to be considered by the trial court and the award to the husband of all of the real estate determined to be marital property was not error. Conrad v. Bowers (A.), 533 S.W.2d 614. (1976) Trial courts are vested with broad discretion in dividing marital property in dissolution of marriage proceedings. In re Marriage of Vanet (A.), 544 S.W.2d 236. (1976) The word "conduct" means general conduct of the parties during the marriage and is not limited to conduct relating to financial misdeeds. Butcher v. Butcher (A.), 544 S.W.2d 249. (1976) For discussion of division of marital property and definition of same see Davis v. Davis (A.), 544 S.W.2d 259. (1977) While wife's misconduct was to be taken into account in dividing marital property, it had begun late in the nineteen year marriage and was not such as to deprive her of right to share equitably in marital property. Thus, in addition to shares in closely held corporation awarded by trial court, she would be awarded a farm acquired by parties during marriage. Marriage of Schulte (A.), 546 S.W.2d 41. (1977) Requirement that court make a division of marital property in a dissolution action is mandatory and failure to comply results in no final judgment in the action. The fact that a final judgment has not been rendered bars an appeal under the provisions of § 512.020, RSMo. Corder v. Corder (A.), 546 S.W.2d 798. (1977) Property purchased with earnings during marriage is marital property regardless of how title is taken. Held error to set a future date for sale of property and allow a party a dollar value when sold. Inflation could seriously alter the value of the amount received so that proper judgment should have been for a percentage of the sale to be held in the future. Ortmann v. Ortmann (A.), 550 S.W.2d 226. (1977) Held, failure of either party's petition to ask for division of property does not relieve trial judge from duty to make a division of the property. Hulsey v. Hulsey, (A.), 550 S.W.2d 902. (1977) A husband may not voluntarily limit his work to reduce his income and escape support payments. A court may in proper circumstances impute an income to a husband according to what he could have earned by the use of his best efforts. Klinge v. Klinge (A.), 554 S.W.2d 474. (1978) Statute does not require equal division of marital property, but only "just" division. This is true where one spouse has engaged in marital misconduct. Arp v. Arp (A.),572 S.W.2d 232. (1978) Personal jurisdiction over an absent spouse is not necessary to confer jurisdiction for the purpose of dividing marital property. Chenoweth v. Chenoweth (A.), 575 S.W.2d 871. (1984) "Source of funds" theory, adopted in this case, requires that the court determine the character of property by the source of funds financing the purchase, so that the property is considered to have been "acquired" as it is paid for. This theory allows for reimbursement for increase in value of the property. Hoffman v. Hoffman (Mo. banc), 676 S.W.2d 817. (1985) Held, the "source of funds rule" as announced in Hoffman v. Hoffman, 676 S.W.2d 817 (Mo banc 1984) should be retrospectively applied. Sumners v. Sumners, (Mo.), 701 S.W.2d 720. (1987) Goodwill in a professional practice is property subject to division pursuant to this section and is defined as the value of the practice which exceeds its tangible assets and which is the result of the tendency of clients/patients to return to and recommend the practice irrespective of the reputation of the individual practitioner. Hanson v. Hanson, 738 S.W.2d 429 (Mo. banc.). (1987) Proper date for valuing marital property in a dissolution proceeding is the date of the trial. Taylor v. Taylor, 736 S.W.2d 388 (Mo. banc.). (1987) It was proper for the court to consider, as an economic circumstance, in making a division of property, the sums voluntarily expended by husband for the support and education of a healthy adult child and to offset the wife's entitlement to husband's retirement pay by sums she received or would have received in maintenance. In Re Marriage of Dildy, 737 S.W.2d 756 (Mo.App.S.D.). (1997) Statute does not allow the court to quash a QDRO and replace it with a domestic relations order that was not qualified. Offield v. Offield, 955 S.W.2d 247 (Mo.App.W.D.). (1999) Statute does not give a trial court discretion to divide and distribute marital property to the parties' children. Randolph v. Randolph, 8 S.W.3d 160 (Mo.App.W.D.). (2003) Section is more specific concerning authorization for modifying qualified domestic relations order and thus prevails over more general statute precluding modification of marital property division. Ricketts v. Ricketts, 113 S.W.3d 255 (Mo.App.W.D.).