Missouri Divorce and Family Law Blog : Kansas City Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Wortman Law Firm

In a divorce proceeding, a personal injury settlement can be a major asset that will have to be divided between the parties. Missouri uses the "analytical" approach to determine whether the settlement proceeds are marital, non-marital, or both.

In a marriage dissolution proceeding, the trial court uses a two-step process for dividing property. The trial court must first set aside non-marital property before it divides marital property “in such proportions as [it] deems just.” Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital, but the presumption may be overcome. A settlement for a personal injury claim occurring during the marriage may be both marital and non-marital.

To determine whether funds from a personal injury settlement are marital or non-marital, Missouri uses the “analytical” approach. Under this approach, also known as “replacement analysis,” the settlement award is classified by what it is meant to replace. To determine the intent of a settlement, a court may look to what the parties would have received if the claims had been adjudicated.  If the award is to compensate for separate, non-marital losses, it is non-marital property; to the extent it compensates for marital losses, it is marital property.

Under the analytical approach, compensation for loss of future, post-dissolution wages is non-marital property, while compensation for wages lost during the marriage is marital. Similarly, compensation for post-dissolution medical expenses is generally considered non-marital, while compensation for medical expenses during the marriage is generally marital.. Compensation for non-economic damages, such as “pain, suffering, disfigurement, disability, and loss of ability to lead a normal life” is generally considered the separate property of the injured spouse.

The Court of Appeals recently held that the trial court did not err in determining that post-dissolution payments due under the settlement agreement were properly characterized as non-marital property. To see the opinion, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Southern District of Missouri has just recently upheld the Missouri exemption (protection from creditors) for Tenancy by the Entirety for jointly owned property by married couples.

Tenancy by the Entireties is a special form of property ownership that Missouri, and some other states, reserved for married couples only. Tenancy by the Entireties means that a husband and wife own property as one person, and each of them owns a 100% interest in the property.  This is different than co-tenancy, where each owner only owns their respective interest in the property (such as when two unmarried people own property – they each own only their half).

It is presumed that jointly owned property by married couples is tenancy by the entirety, and the presumption can only be rebutted by evidence that there was consent, agreement, or acquiescence that the property was not owned in this way. Tenancy by the Entirety property is fully exempt from creditors of one spouse, and is exempt in bankruptcy provided that only one spouse is filing. If both spouses file bankruptcy, the exemption does not apply, and if a creditor trying to collect a judgment is a creditor of both spouses, the exemption does not apply.

In the recent ruling, a creditor had obtained a judgment in another state, registered it in Missouri, and attempted to collect the debt by seizing assets (known as execution) that were jointly owned by a married couple. The Court held that, even though there was some evidence that the property was only owned by one spouse, it was not enough to rebut the presumption of tenancy by the entirety, and the property was exempt from collection.

To read the full opinion click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks