Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Fourth Division
CHELLE A. HALL-BOULDIN, Respondent,
DOUGLAS A. BOULDIN, Appellant.
from the Circuit Court of Lincoln County Cause No.
08L6-FC00273-01 Honorable David H. Ash
M. Gaertner, Jr. Judge.
A. Bouldin (Husband) appeals the trial court's partial
summary judgment in favor of Chelle A. Hall-Bouldin (Wife) on
Husband's motions to divide undivided assets and for
fraud. Husband argues a genuine factual dispute exists
regarding whether the parties' prior dissolution
addressed all marital assets. Husband also argues that the
trial court erred in determining that his fraud claim was
barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.
November 9, 2009, the dissolution court dissolved the
marriage of Husband and Wife. The dissolution judgment
incorporated a settlement agreement (Settlement) between the
parties addressing, among other things, the division of
marital property. The Settlement contained a provision for
bank accounts, which stated the following:
Each party shall be deemed the owner of his or her own bank
accounts. [Wife] is awarded all accounts at People's Bank
and Trust, no matter how the accounts are titled.
October 18, 2011, Husband filed a motion to modify the
dissolution judgment as it related to child custody and
support, as well as a motion for contempt. Husband filed his
third amended petition on November 10, 2014. This petition
contained four counts: Count I, a motion to modify; Count II,
a motion for contempt; Count III, a motion to divide
undivided assets; and Count IV, a motion for fraud. The trial
court severed Counts I and II from Counts III and IV.
III and IV concerned Husband's claim that Wife had failed
to disclose certain bank accounts during the dissolution
proceeding. In Count III, Husband alleged that ten bank
accounts held at People's Bank and Trust Co. (the
disputed accounts), with values totaling approximately $229,
276.27, should have been included as marital assets and
divided by the dissolution court. In Count IV, Husband alleged Wife
deliberately failed to disclose these accounts, constituting
moved for summary judgment on Counts III and
IV. The trial
court granted Wife's motion, finding that prior to the
dissolution judgment, Husband's counsel had subpoenaed
and had received from People's Bank and Trust Co. the
records for each of the ten disputed accounts listed in his
petition. The trial court also found that these accounts were
divided in the parties' Settlement and subsequent
dissolution judgment by the provision stating that all
accounts at People's Bank and Trust were awarded to Wife.
The trial court pointed out that the Settlement included
language acknowledging that the parties had performed limited
discovery regarding their respective assets and that they
assumed the risks in doing so. Finally, the trial court found
that Husband's claim for fraud was barred by the
applicable five-year statute of limitations, running from
April of 2009, when People's Bank and Trust Co. produced
bank records for the disputed accounts. This appeal follows.
reviewing the trial court's summary judgment, we view the
record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
according him or her the benefit of all reasonable inferences
from the record. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am.
Marine Supply Corp.. 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc
1993). We take facts set forth by affidavit or otherwise in
support of the motion as true unless contradicted by the
non-moving party's response. Id.
review of summary judgment is essentially de novo.
Id. We employ the same criteria for testing the
propriety of summary judgment as the trial court. Id.,
Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant demonstrates
a right to judgment as a matter of law based on material
facts about which there is no genuine dispute. IcL at 380-81.
raises two points on appeal. First, he argues that the trial
court erred in granting summary judgment on his motion to
divide undivided assets because a genuine issue of material
fact existed regarding whether two of the disputed accounts
were divided in the dissolution judgment. Second, Husband
argues that the trial court erred in determining his fraud
claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he did
not learn of the existence of the disputed ...