Ruffino v. Ruffino

Citations: 400 S.W.3d 851; 2013 WL 2489828; 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 696Docket: No. ED 97848

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; June 11, 2013; Missouri; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Robert G. Dowd, Jr., the presiding judge, addresses the dissolution judgment regarding child support and maintenance awarded to Kimberley Ruffino. Salvatore Ruffino, the husband, appeals the trial court's decisions on child support calculations, maintenance awards, and marital asset distribution. Conversely, Kimberley Ruffino cross-appeals, contesting the division of Salvatore's retirement accounts. The court reverses the judgment in part for lacking necessary findings for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order but affirms other aspects.

Key facts include that the couple married in August 1987 and had three children, after which Kimberley did not work outside the home until 1999. She was employed by 6Star Management Company, a business jointly owned by the couple, while Salvatore served as vice president of a construction company. The marriage was marked by Salvatore's verbal and physical abuse, leading to Kimberley's PTSD and physical injuries. The couple separated in December 2007, and the trial court issued the dissolution judgment in November 2011.

In reviewing the case, the court adheres to the standards set in Murphy v. Carron, affirming unless there is insufficient evidence, the judgment is against the evidence's weight, or the law is misapplied. The court supports the trial court's credibility determinations and views evidence favorably towards the judgment. 

Salvatore contends that the trial court miscalculated Kimberley’s child support based on an incorrect assessment of her monthly gross income. The court disagrees, explaining that income for self-employed individuals is calculated from gross receipts minus necessary expenses, with discretion on including non-cash deductions. The trial court determined Kimberley’s yearly gross income was $22,928, equating to a monthly income of approximately $1,911, based on expert testimony. Salvatore argues 6Star's revenues and expenses yield a higher income but acknowledges conflicting evidence was presented during the trial regarding 6Star's expenses.

The trial court has discretion to assess witness credibility, as established in *In re Marriage of Angell*. In this case, the court found the testimonies of Wife and Norton credible. Norton’s calculations for Wife's monthly gross income adhered to Rule 88.01 and Form 14, incorporating permissible non-cash adjustments. Consequently, the court’s income calculation was deemed correct. 

Husband contested the maintenance award amount, arguing it violated Section 452.335.2, which outlines factors for determining maintenance, including the parties' financial resources and standard of living during the marriage. The court's decision is presumed correct unless the awarded amount is excessively beyond the payer's means. Maintenance calculations must exclude amounts for dependent child support. 

The trial court determined Wife's monthly expenses to be $3,900, based on her income and expenses statement, having removed child-related expenses. It concluded that both parties could meet their reasonable needs with the awarded maintenance, affirming that the award was justified even considering Husband’s abusive behavior during the marriage.

Husband also challenged the trial court's valuation and distribution of marital assets under Section 452.330. The court retained broad discretion in asset division and could penalize a party for unjustly withdrawing marital funds by adjusting their asset award. Overall, the trial court's decisions regarding maintenance and asset distribution were upheld.

Husband owned the property at 1074 Bridleridge Crossing Spur and thirteen Personal Seat Licenses for Rams games at the time of dissolution. He could not account for proceeds from Rams ticket sales in 2010 and purchased $35,985 worth of personal property without Wife's consent after separation. The trial court found Husband's testimony on ownership and ticket sales to be not credible, and it awarded him the personal property, which was in his possession at dissolution, without valuation by Wife’s appraisal witness. Exhibit 4 detailed property division from the marital home, while Exhibit 5 listed property solely awarded to Husband. The court's broad discretion in property division was upheld, and no error was found in its ruling.

Wife cross-appealed, arguing the trial court erred in how it ordered the division of Husband’s retirement accounts, as it did not specify which accounts would provide her $350,000 or whether she would receive appreciation or losses post-judgment. The court agreed, noting that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) must clearly define these details. The trial court's judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for clarification regarding the division of Husband’s retirement accounts, including how the $350,000 award would be allocated among them and whether it includes appreciation or losses.