noting that "[gjenerally, the wife could not claim the retained earnings as marital property, because ' the earnings and profits of a corporation remain its property until severed from other corporate assets and distributed as dividends” but also. recognizing that with closely held corporations, in the determination of whether retained earnings are marital property, "the critical distinguishing factors [are] a controlling interest in the corporation by the owner spouse and substantial control over decisions to distribute corporate earnings” and affirming the lower court's ruling that the retained earnings were not marital property
How later courts described this case
- noting that "[gjenerally, the wife could not claim the retained earnings as marital property, because ' the earnings and profits of a corporation remain its property until severed from other corporate assets and distributed as dividends” but also. recognizing that with closely held corporations, in the determination of whether retained earnings are marital property, "the critical distinguishing factors [are] a controlling interest in the corporation by the owner spouse and substantial control over decisions to distribute corporate earnings” and affirming the lower court's ruling that the retained earnings were not marital property
- Missouri Supreme Court affirmed limitation on discovery, noting that party seeking discovery bears burden of showing “relevancy and materiality of documents sought to be discovered and that they are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”
- 29.5% interest was separate, but increase of value during marriage would be marital to extent claimant could prove value of separate owner’s services to corporation; proof failed, however
- because wife failed to show that value of separate property increased due to husband’s sacrifice of salary or dividends, increased value of separate property would not become marital property
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WELLIVER, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result. I do not believe adoption of the “source of the funds” test is necessary to the disposition of this case. Abandonment of the “inception of title” test and adoption of the “source of the funds” test only serves to saddle an already overburdened judiciary with a tedious task of tracing that generally will be as undeterminative of the case as the discussion was herein.