Adding Spouse to Legal Title Transmutes Non-Marital Real Property to Marital; Wedding Rings are Separate Non-Marital Property

Recent Case:  JJ v. EJ Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD74148

Adding a spouse to the title of non-marital property, in this case a farm, transmutes separate non-marital property into marital property. Consequently, when Respondent re-titled the property adding his spouse to the title, the farm became marital property. When the parties placed the property into their trust, the property remained marital property.  

In her third point, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding the wedding rings were marital property. The Appellate court agrees because there was no evidence in the record to support that the rings were marital property. The only evidence is Respondent’s testimony that he purchased the rings for Appellant, and an inter vivos gift to a spouse is non-marital property.

 

Missouri Supreme Court Decision: Spouse's Contribution to Separate Property Creates Marital Interest In Property Which May Be Divided by Trial Court

In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Missouri, the Court held that a spouses contribution to otherwise separate property creates a marital interest that can be divided by the Court.  In Missouri, property that was owned prior to the marriage is generally considered to be separate, non-marital property.  Separate property is awarded to the spouse who owns the property, and marital property is divided by the court in some ratio, very commonly 50/50.  There are exceptions to this rule of course, including, but not limited to, source of funds, transmutation, and marital contributions.

In the recent decision, one spouse owned a business with a value of $20,000 at the time of the marriage, and during the course of the marriage the value of the business increased to around $500,000.  The other spouse never had legal title or a legal interest in the business, but made contributions to the business, including reducing a substantial amount of debt, acting as a guarantor and corporate officer, conducting all bookkeeping and corporate banking, managing the office, introducing new products, making capital improvements, and working as an employee. 

The trial court found that these contributions created a marital interest in the property, and the Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the equal division of the equity in the business under the rationale that marital labor, effort, or services result in a marital interest in the increased value of a spouse's separate property if there is proof of: (1) a contribution of substantial services; (2) a direct correlation between those services and the increase in value; (3) the amount of the increase in value; (4) performance of the services during the marriage; and (5) the value of the services, the lack of compensation, or inadequate compensation. 

The court found that all these requirements were met and upheld the decision of the trial court.  The full opinion can be read here.

What California's Same Sex Marriage Law Means to Missourians

As most people know, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.  So what does that mean for Missourians? 

  • In California, there were two statutes that said that a marriage is between a man and a woman, which was interpreted to prohibit same sex marriage.  The Supreme Court ruled those statutes to be unconstitutional under the California Constitution (not the federal).   It is now legal for same sex couples to marry in California.

 

  • Missouri is different.  In Missouri, rather than a statutory ban on same-sex marriage, we have a constitutional amendment (2004) that defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman, and marriages between same-sex couples are not recognized.  There is also a federal statute in play called the Federal Defense of Marriage Act which permits Missouri (and other states) to deny full faith and credit to the marriage laws of another state.  This means that Missouri does not have to recognize a same-sex marriage that is perfectly legal in California since it is inconsistent with Missouri law.  The federal law's constitutionality has not been fully challenged yet.

 

  • Taken together, it is presumed that if a same sex married couple moved to Missouri, or Missourians went to California to get married and returned to Missouri, their marriage would not be recognized.

 

  • This also means that same-sex married couples could not obtain a divorce in Missouri because there would be no jurisdiction for the courts.  Thus, dissolution of marriage laws that control child custody, visitation, support, maintenance, and property division would presumably not apply.

 

  • In the event of a separation the couple would probably have to file an action under the Uniform Parentage Act (commonly known as a paternity action currently) to determine custody, visitation, and child support issues if adopted children are involved.

 

  • Same sex couples may want to utilize prenuptial agreements, antenuptial agreements, contracts, and other documentation to control the disposition of assets, including real estate, personal property, bank accounts, securities, business interests, etc.

Source for Post:  mobar.org Esq. soundbite.