Kyle Wagner, Appellant, v. Tammy Wagner, Respondent.

KYLE W AGNER, Appellant, v. TAMMY WAGNER, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ED113807

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Osage County The Honorable Sonya D. Brandt, Judge Introduction Kyle Wagner (Husband) appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to Tammy Wagner (Wife). On appeal, Husband challenges the timeliness of the trial court's amended judgment and the trial court's distribution of debts and assets in the original judgment. We find that the trial court's original judgment was not final because it did not distribute all of the marital assets, and thus the trial court retained the authority to amend the judgment. Husband does not challenge the merits of the amended judgment, which we affirm. Factual and Procedural Background

2 Husband and Wife married in 2002 and separated in 2024. There were two children born of the marriage. During their long marriage, Husband and Wife accumulated a considerable amount of marital property. At trial, Husband submitted his First Amended Statement of Marital and Non-Marital Property and Liabilities (Husband's statement of property), which the trial court admitted as Exhibit 28. Husband's statement of property included a list of approximately 150 items of marital household and personal goods collectively valued at $59,715. His list included suggested distributions of the marital household and personal goods between himself and Wife. Likewise, Wife submitted her Statement of Marital and Non-Marital Assets and Debts (Wife's statement of property), which the trial court admitted. Wife's statement of property included a less extensive list of marital household and personal goods, with a total value of $31,960. Wife's suggested distribution of the marital household and personal goods differed from Husband's. After the February 28, 2025 trial, the trial court dissolved the marriage. In its judgment (Original Judgment), the trial court divided the non-marital and marital property, stating that each party was to receive the marital property identified in Exhibit 5, attached to the Original Judgment. Regarding the parties' marital household and personal goods, which is the subject of this appeal, Exhibit 5 distributed "personal assets" valued in the amount of $9,260 to Wife and $22,855 to Husband, but it did not specify which items of household and personal goods were distributed to which party, despite the itemized lists of marital household and personal goods provided by both parties.

3 The trial court issued its Original Judgment on May 2, 2025. On May 19, 2025, Wife filed a motion to amend the judgment, and on May 22, 2025, Husband filed a motion to amend the judgment. Husband argued that the Original Judgment failed to distribute the marital household and personal goods. On August 25, 2025, which was 95 days after Husband's motion to amend, the trial court entered an amended judgment (the Amended Judgment). In the Amended Judgment, the trial court differently distributed the marital assets, stating that the parties would receive the marital property identified in Exhibits 5 1 1 Exhibit 5 followed the same format as in the Original Judgment, in that it assigned a value of personal assets given to each party but did not specifically distribute the marital household and personal goods. and 6. Regarding the parties' marital household and personal goods, the trial court adopted Husb and's valuation and distribution of the marital household and personal goods as set forth in his Exhibit 28, which the trial court re-labeled and attached as Exhibit 6. This appeal follows. Standard of Review Following a judgment of dissolution, this Court will sustain the judgment of a trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Parciak v. Parciak, 553 S.W.3d 446, 452 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)). We view the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment, and we disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Id.

4 Analysis Husband raises two points on appeal. In his first point, Husband argues the trial court's Amended Judgment was invalid because it was not entered until after the trial court had lost jurisdiction to amend the judgment, and in his second point, he argues the trial court erred in entering the Original Judgment without dividing all the marital property. Because the analyses of both points are intertwined, we address them together. Initially, we are required to examine the issue of whether the trial court's judgment was final, even if not raised by the parties. Fregeau v. Fregeau, 580 S.W.3d 92, 96 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). Section 452.330.1 2 2 All statutory references are to RSMo. Supp. 2025, unless otherwise indicated. governs the distribution of property in a dissolution of m arriage, and it provides that the court "shall set apart to each spouse such spouse's nonmarital property and shall divide the marital property and marital debt in such proportions as the court deems just." Accordingly, if the dissolution judgment has not distributed all of the spouses' property, the judgment is not final. Id.; see also Meltzer v. Meltzer, 775 S.W.2d 120, 120-21 (Mo. banc 1989); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 109 S.W.3d 258, 269 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) ("judgment that does not actually divide or distribute all of the parties' marital property is not a final judgment"). The Original Judgment here was not a final judgment. Although both Husband and Wife submitted lists of marital household and personal goods at trial that were admitted into the record, the Original Judgment did not distribute these marital goods between the parties. Exhibit 5 of the Original Judgment merely stated that Wife was to receive

5 "personal assets" valued at $9,260 and Husband to receive "personal assets" valued at $22,855. The parties disagreed on the distribution of many of the marital household and personal goods, and the trial court did not distribute the contested items between the parties. Although the trial court in its Original Judgment indicated that when the parties provided differing values for household and personal goods it would adopt Wife's values, the trial court did not resolve any disputes about which party would receive specific items. Thus, because the trial court did not distribute all of the marital property in the Original Judgment, it was not a final judgment. See Meltzer, 775 S.W.2d at 121. Accordingly, because the Original Judgment was not final, the trial court retained the authority to modify it. See Sanford v. CenturyTel of Missouri, LLC, 490 S.W.3d 717, 720-21 (Mo. banc 2016) (any order that adjudicates fewer than all claims, rights, or liabilities does not terminate action but is subject to modification at any time). Husband is correct that the trial court did not enter the Amended Judgment until more than 90 days had passed after Husband's motion to amend, which would ordinarily terminate the court's authority to modify a final judgment. See Rule 78.06 3 3 All rule references are to the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure 2025. (allowing trial court ninety day s to rule on motion to amend judgment or for new trial); Hanna v. Hanna, 446 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (on ninetieth day any motion for new trial is deemed overruled by operation of law, and judgment becomes final for purposes of appeal, at which point trial court loses authority to modify the judgment). However, here, because the Original Judgment was not a final judgment, the trial court retained the authority to

6 modify the Original Judgment. See Coleman v . Coleman, 187 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (until dissolution judgment is final in that it divides all property and liabilities, trial court retains jurisdiction). Thus, the Amended Judgment was not entered out of time and was a valid judgment. Appellant's Point One is denied. Husband's Point Two challenging the merits of the Original Judgment is denied as moot because it was replaced by the Amended Judgment. Husband does not challenge any portion of Amended Judgment on appeal, and we will not consider it sua sponte. 3018 Pershall, LLC v. Outfront Media, LLC, 716 S.W.3d 284, 297 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (this Court will not review for plain error when appellant has not requested this analysis). Conclusion The trial court's Amended Judgment is affirmed. ________ ___________________ Gary M. Ga ertner, Jr., Judge Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, Presiding Judge and James M. Dowd, Judge, concur. ____________________________