## Facts

- LaVonne Carol Holman (Wife) and William Hill Holman (Husband) married on October 20, 1991, and separated on November 4, 2004; no children were born of the marriage.
- Before marrying, the parties executed an antenuptial agreement providing, in relevant part, that each spouse’s separate property would remain separate after marriage and that only jointly titled property could be treated as marital property.
- Before the marriage, Wife owned a home in Rogers, Arkansas, which she sold for $75,000 when she moved in with Husband.
- Before the wedding, Wife gave Husband $20,000 “to pay for half” of a home the parties bought in Cassville, Missouri; that Cassville house was titled jointly and the loan was signed by both parties.
- At the time of the marriage, Husband owned a farmhouse titled in his name, valued at $54,640.
- During the marriage, the parties jointly spent about $90,000 remodeling the farmhouse; by the time of trial, the farmhouse was valued at $185,000.
- Husband acquired commercial land from his father as nonmarital property; the land was valued at $30,000 at the time Husband acquired it.
- During the marriage, the parties jointly spent about $75,000 to build a commercial building on the commercial land; by the time of trial, the commercial land and building were valued at $127,000.
- In dividing property in the dissolution judgment, the trial court subtracted Husband’s initial nonmarital value in each property and treated the remaining increase in value as marital property, dividing that increase evenly between Husband and Wife (e.g., $185,000 − $54,640 = $130,360, divided equally).
- The trial court also found the antenuptial agreement unconscionable and therefore unenforceable as applied to the property division at issue.
- Husband appealed, challenging the characterization and division of the increased value in the real estate and the ruling that the antenuptial agreement was unconscionable.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by classifying and dividing as marital property the increase in value of Husband’s real estate titled solely in his name when the evidence showed marital funds and efforts contributed to that increase.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by valuing Husband’s nonmarital interests as baseline amounts and dividing the remaining appreciation equally between the parties.
3. Whether the trial court erred in finding the parties’ antenuptial agreement unconscionable and refusing to enforce it to bar Wife from sharing in the appreciation of Husband’s separately titled property.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the dissolution judgment.
- The court held that the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that Wife acquired a marital interest in the increased value of the farmhouse and the commercial property to the extent the increases were attributable to marital expenditures and joint efforts.
- The court approved the trial court’s method of setting aside Husband’s original nonmarital interests (the baseline values) and treating the remaining increase in value as marital property subject to division.
- The court held that the equal division of the marital portion of the appreciation was within the trial court’s broad discretion in dividing marital property.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the antenuptial agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable on this record, allowing the court to divide the marital component of the appreciation despite the agreement’s “only jointly titled property” language.

## Legal Principles

- In a dissolution appeal, the appellate court affirms unless the judgment lacks substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law.
- The trial court has broad discretion in dividing marital property; an appellate court intervenes only when the division is so heavily weighted in favor of one party that it amounts to an abuse of discretion.
- The trial court determines credibility and the weight of testimony; on appeal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, and contrary inferences are disregarded.
- Property owned by a spouse before marriage or acquired by gift/inheritance may be nonmarital, but an increase in value may be treated as marital to the extent marital funds or marital labor caused or contributed to that increase.
- A trial court may identify and set aside an owning spouse’s nonmarital interest as a baseline and classify the balance of the property’s increase in value as marital when supported by evidence of marital contribution.
- Antenuptial agreements are generally enforceable but remain subject to contract defenses; a trial court may refuse enforcement upon a supported finding of unconscionability.

## Conclusion

Holman v. Holman affirms a dissolution judgment that treated the appreciation in a husband’s separately titled farmhouse and commercial property as marital to the extent the increase was linked to substantial marital remodeling and construction expenditures, after first reserving the husband’s initial nonmarital values, and it further affirms the trial court’s refusal to enforce an antenuptial agreement found unconscionable under the facts presented.


Holman v. Holman, 228 S.W.3d 628 (2007)