SHERI GOODWIN v. SHAWN GOODWIN (2026)

Introduction

Shawn Goodwin (Husband) appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to Sheri Goodwin (Wife). Husband raises two points on appeal: the trial court abused its discretion 1) by adopting Wife's designations and valuations on Husband's property, and 2) by “not properly” dividing marital and nonmarital property when it awarded Wife marital property as her separate property and awarded Husband property owned by a third party.¹ Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Husband and Wife married in September 1998. Husband is an auto technician who also began to buy and sell car parts on the side a couple years into the marriage. In August 2019 the parties separated, and Wife filed for divorce in June 2022. The dissolution proceeded to a bench trial on July 29, 2024.

At trial, Wife presented the methods she used to reach her proposed valuations of the marital property. Husband, for his part, disputed many of Wife's proposed valuations but offered only a handful of alternative valuations and limited testimony contradicting Wife's.²

Husband and his employer (Employer) both testified that some of the property apportioned in the dissolution belonged to Employer because Husband had been holding and selling items on eBay on Employer's behalf. Husband did not segregate his income or inventory, and neither Husband nor Employer could identify with any specificity which items belonged to Husband and which belonged to Employer. Wife testified Husband never indicated he was buying or selling property on Employer's behalf.

The trial court entered an initial judgment on December 16, 2024, awarding each party their current residence as marital property and awarding the bulk of the remaining marital personal property—including unidentified items Husband alleged were property of Employer—to Husband, with values largely (but not entirely) adopted from Wife's proposed valuations. The trial court also ordered Husband to make a cash equalization payment of $225,000. After hearing motions to modify the judgment from both parties, the trial court entered an Amended Judgment on April 14, 2025, which, inter alia, reduced the cash equalization payment to $205,500, awarded Wife retroactive child support of $182 per month, and included an explicit statement that the trial court had reached its own value determinations. This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

This Court will affirm a trial court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or misapplies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We also review the trial court's division of property to determine if an abuse of discretion has occurred. Sabatino v. Sabatino, 314 S.W.3d 854, 858 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). An abuse of discretion is only found where the award is “clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration; if reasonable people can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, it cannot be said the trial court abused its discretion.” Sweet v. Sweet, 154 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). We defer to the trial court's determinations of credibility and “accept as true the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary.” Groenings v. Groenings, 277 S.W.3d 270, 274 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008).

Discussion

Point One: Valuations

In Point One, Husband asserts: “The trial court abused its discretion in adopting [Wife's] designations and valuations of the property on [Husband's] property [sic] for purposes of division at divorce, thus resulting in reversible error.” Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by crediting Wife's testimony and adopting the majority of her valuations, we affirm.³

Analysis

Husband argues the trial court abused its discretion by adopting most of Wife's valuations and disregarding his testimony disputing those values. We disagree. Husband's allegation that Wife provided no factual support for her proposed valuations is demonstrably false. The record indicates the trial court received a comprehensive set of valuations from Wife, and Wife testified how she reached those figures by consulting tax documents and conducting market research online. While Husband disputed Wife's valuations, he offered few of his own and did not explain his reasoning.

Husband essentially challenges the trial court's determination that Wife was the more credible witness with more accurate valuations. As noted above, the trial court is in a better position to make these determinations and, absent clear abuse of discretion, we defer to those determinations. Id. The trial court was free to reject the evidence offered by Husband and find Wife's valuations more credible. Id. And the trial court clearly stated in the Amended Judgment that it reached its own value determinations rather than simply adopting Wife's without due consideration.

Husband also argues the trial court was required to make detailed factual findings, citing Dardick v. Dardick, 670 S.W.2d 865, 868 (Mo. banc 1984), and that absent such findings, reversal is warranted here. Husband misapprehends Dardick, which contrasts the Western and Southern Districts’ approach—which required more detailed findings for disputed valuations of marital property awards—with this Court's, which “consistently has held that absent a request for findings under Rule 73.01(a)(2), the trial court is not required to assign a value to each item on the property inventory.” Id. at 867-68. The Dardick Court upheld the Eastern District's approach and affirmed that no specific findings of fact are required by statute. Id. at 868. Husband conceded at oral argument that neither party requested findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court, so the lack of detailed findings cannot support reversal here.

Absent detailed findings of fact, this Court assumes the facts are in accordance with the judgment. Id. The trial court was better situated to make the necessary credibility and value determinations and the record does not support Husband's contention that the judgment was clearly against the logic of the circumstances, unreasonable, or arbitrary. Point One is denied.

Point Two: Division

In Point Two, Husband asserts the trial court abused its discretion by incorrectly classifying marital property as Wife's separate property and by awarding Husband a third person's property as marital property.⁴ Because neither of these allegations is supported by evidence in the record, we affirm.

Analysis

First, we address Husband's claim that the trial court incorrectly awarded Wife marital property as her separate property. This is factually untrue. The Amended Judgment clearly states: “The Court finds [Wife's current home] is marital property, and sets it off to [Wife], to be her sole and separate property.” We need not address whether a finding the trial court did not actually make would have constituted an abuse of discretion.

Next, Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding property to him as marital property that actually belonged to Husband's Employer. While Husband was able to identify classes of property—bumpers, headlights, fenders, etc.—some of which belonged to Husband and some belonged to Employer, neither Husband nor Employer could identify which specific items belonged to Husband and which belonged to Employer.

All property which either or both spouses acquire during the marriage is presumed to be marital property in the absence of proof to the contrary. In re Marriage of Sumner, 777 S.W.2d 267, 272 (Mo. App. S.D. 1989) (citing Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 627 S.W.2d 117, 121 (Mo. App. W.D. 1982)). As the trial court reasonably determined, Husband was unable to identify specific items belonging to Employer and failed to carry his burden of proof on the matter. On appeal, this Court will presume a division of property is correct, and the party challenging the division has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Neal v. Neal, 281 S.W.3d 330, 341 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). Given the record, we cannot say the trial court's judgment was “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock [our] sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Sweet, 154 S.W.3d at 504. Point Two is denied.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Husband's brief is rife with Rule 84.04 violations. Chief among these, Husband fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1), which requires an appellant's point relied on to “(A) [i]dentify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) [s]tate concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and (C) [e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” Though such noncompliance justifies dismissing this appeal, “we prefer to decide cases on the merits where possible.” Bourbon v. Benson, 732 S.W.3d 249, 252 n.2 (Mo. App. E.D. 2026).All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2025).

2.   To the extent any of Husband's testimony contradicts Wife's valuations, the trial court implicitly did not credit that testimony.

3.   To the extent Husband intended to raise substantial evidence or weight of the evidence challenges in both points—which would have been multifarious even if done correctly— he failed to do so properly. First, Husband did not raise those arguments in his points relied on as required by Rule 84.04(e). Arguments “exceed[ing] the scope of the point relied on preserve[ ] nothing for our review.” Bourbon, 732 S.W.3d at 254 n.4. Second, Husband engaged in none of the steps required for substantial evidence or weight of the evidence challenges. See Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 186–87 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). Accordingly, we review only the abuse of discretion claims raised in Husband's points relied on.

4.   Husband attempts to shoehorn several additional grievances into the argument section following Point Two, including allegations that 1) the court adopted Wife's valuations without consideration, 2) the division of property unduly favored Wife, 3) the trial court misapplied the law, and 4) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Because these arguments exceed the scope of the point relied on and thus preserve nothing for review, see Bourbon, 732 S.W.3d at 254 n.4, we decline to address them.

Virginia W. Lay, Judge

Michael S. Wright, Presiding Judge, concurs. James M. Dowd, Judge, concurs.