Section 8.35 Burden of Proof

• Library: Elder Law 2015 Supp

a. (§8.35) Burden of Proof

The majority of appellate court decisions in Missouri addressing the issue of validity of antenuptial and postnuptial agreements involve claims for spousal rights against the estate of a deceased spouse. Regardless of whether the cases involve these claims or claims asserted in dissolution of marriage actions, the majority of decisions appear to place the burden of proof pertaining to enforceability on the party seeking to invalidate the agreement. See:

· Heady v. Heady, 766 S.W.2d 489 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989)

· State ex rel. Rope v. Borron, 762 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988) (distinguishing Hosmer v. Hosmer,
611 S.W.2d 32 (Mo. App. S.D. 1980), and Estate of Murphy, 661 S.W.2d 657 (Mo. App. S.D. 1983))

· McQuate v. White, 389 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. 1965).

Particular care should be given to how the issues are pleaded regardless of whether the matter is in equity, probate court, or family court.

Despite the foregoing, it is still the responsibility of the party seeking enforcement with respect to property in a dissolution of marriage action to provide evidence rebutting the marital property presumption. Searcy v. Searcy, 658 S.W.2d 931, 934
(Mo. App. W.D. 1983). This is especially so when the property at the time of dissolution is different than what was originally disclosed at the time of execution.

In Dardick v. Dardick, 948 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), the wife claimed that certain property purchased with funds from a joint account was marital property because, once the husband’s separate property was placed into the joint account, it was converted into marital property. But the character of the property as community/marital—this was a California antenuptial agreement—or separate is not determined by the presumptions set forth by statute or caselaw but by the terms of the contract. In Dardick, the agreement clearly provided that property acquired by the husband remained his sole and separate property and that property that, in the absence of the agreement, might be community property or other property in which the wife might have an interest—marital property under Missouri law—remained the separate property of the husband. Because none of the assets acquired by the husband were acquired in joint names, thereby triggering a provision of the contract, the creation of a joint account to facilitate the wife’s household spending did not convert purchases made through use of funds in the joint account into marital property in view of the express provisions of the agreement. The funds contributed came solely from the husband’s separate property.

In In re Marriage of Box, 968 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998)...