No. 13091
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
GLADYS T H E W DOWNS,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
ROBERT FRED DOWNS,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable C h a r l e s Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
Lucas, J a r d i n e & Monaghan, Miles C i t y , Montana
James P. Lucas a r g u e d , Miles. C i t y , Montana
K r o n m i l l e r and Seykora, Hardin, Montana
James E. Seykola a r g u e d , Hardin, Montana
F o r Respondent:
C a t e , Lynaugh, F i t z g e r a l d and Huss, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Jerome J. Cate a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: A p r i l 22, 1976
Decided : JtIN 2 8 1976
Filed :
Ji rrJ 2 i 5C37t;
;
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
T h i s appeal a r i s e s o u t of a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t i n a
divorce a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Big Horn County.
The only i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court i s whether t h e t r i a l
c o u r t i n i t s d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , o r made
an i n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of t h e a s s e t s , most of which were a c q u i r e d
during t h e 19 y e a r s of t h e p a r t i e s ' marriage.
P l a i n t i f f and defendant were married i n 1956. Defendant
was 34 y e a r s of age a t t h e time of t h e marriage and had been
p r e v i o u s l y married and divorced. P l a i n t i f f was 24 y e a r s of age
a t t h e time of t h e marriage. Three c h i l d r e n were born t o t h e
p a r t i e s , one d i e d a s a r e s u l t of a f i r e t h a t destroyed t h e family
ranch home i n 1971. The o t h e r two c h i l d r e n a r e Debbie Diane, age
16 and a son Ricky Ray, age 12.
P l a i n t i f f f i l e d f o r d i v o r c e , custody of t h e c h i l d r e n ,
alimony, and a d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y . Defendant f i l e d a c r o s s
complaint. Custody of daughter Debbie Diarte was awarded t o
p l a i n t i f f , t o g e t h e r w i t h $200 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t , p l u s an
award t o p l a i n t i f f of 32 a c r e s of l a n d ( i n c l u d i n g t h e family home
valued between $30,000 and $70,000), household c o n t e n t s , a u t o ,
p l u s $250,000, payable i n i n s t a l l m e n t s over a p e r i o d of 12 y e a r s .
Defendant was awarded custody of son Ricky Ray and a l l t h e r e -
maining p r o p e r t y , s u b j e c t t o t h e mortgages and l i a b i l i t i e s .
A t t h e time of d i v o r c e p l a i n t i f f was 42 y e a r s of age. Her
e d u c a t i o n c o n s i s t e d of one y e a r of h i g h school. She was working
a s a w a i t r e s s a t t h e time she married defendant. During t h e e n t i r e
marriage she performed t h e many t a s k s n e c e s s a r y t o r a i s e h e r
family and h e l p run a ranch o p e r a t i o n . Her c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e
marriage p a r t n e r s h i p were many and t h e y undoubtedly helped t h e
couple i n a c q u i r i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e w e a l t h . P l a i n t i f f contends a t
t h e time of t h e marriage t h e v a l u e of d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s was
approximately $45,000 and through j o i n t e f f o r t s t h e i r p r e s e n t n e t
wurth i s $2,800,000.
Defendant was 52 y e a r s of age a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e .
H e has s u c c e s s f u l l y engaged i n a v a r i e t y of b u s i n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g
a l i v e s t o c k o p e r a t i o n , farm and r a n c h i n g , a t r u c k l i n e from
S e a t t l e t o Alaska, an a e r i a l s p r a y s e r v i c e , o i l w e l l p r o d u c t i o n ,
and o t h e r s . Throughout t h e marriage defendant k e p t t i t l e t o h i s
p r o p e r t y i n h i s own name except f o r c o n t r a c t s f o r deed conveying
r e a l p r o p e r t y s o l d by defendant and upon which h i s w i f e ' s name
appeared a s s e l l e r . Defendant contends t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e of
h i s a s s e t s a t t h e time of t h e marriage was i n excess of $400,000
and t h a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e h i s a s s e t s were c o n s i d e r a b l y
l e s s t h a n t h e amount a l l e g e d by p l a i n t i f f .
O a p p e a l , t h e problem c o n f r o n t i n g t h i s Court c e n t e r s
n
around r h e q u e s t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s a t t h e time of h i s
marriage and a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e . The t r a n s c r i p t p o r t r a y s
him a s a most e v a s i v e w i t n e s s . A t t h e v e r y f i r s t page of t h e
t r a n s c r i p t , c o u n s e l f o r p l a i n t i f f moved t o postpone t h e t r i a l on
t h e grounds t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s due from defendant had n o t been
d e l i v e r e d on time and when t h e y were r e c e i v e d they were e v a s i v e ,
incomplete and prevented an adequate d i s c o v e r y p r o c e s s . In his
motion, c o u n s e l a l s o informed t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e a f f i d a v i t of an
appointed a p p r a i s e r of t h e p r o p e r t y showed t h a t without b e i n g f u l l y
informed of a l l t h e p r o p e r t y and having f i v e o r s i x days t o con-
d u c t t h e a p p r a i s a l , h e could n o t b r i n g back any v a l u e s . This
morion t o postpone was denied by t h e c o u r t and it i s obvious t h e
t r i a l judge, a s w e l l a s p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l , lacked a f u l l d i s -
c l o s u r e of t h e p a r t i e s ' a s s e t s a t t h e time of t r i a l . This
f a i l u r e t o f u l l y p u t b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t proper v a l u a t i o n of
a l l t h e p r o p e r t y caused t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o make an i n e q u i t a b l e
d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y i n s o f a r a s p l a i n t i f f ' s needs a r e
concerned.
Too, t h e t r i a l c o u r t was faced i n making i t s d e c i s i o n
w i t h t h e problem of i n t e r p r e t i n g and e v a l u a t i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y
of defendant a s a w i t n e s s . Throughout t h e testimony of d e f e n d a n t ,
he was e v a s i v e and gave u n f a i r and i n c o r r e c t answers, a l l of which
should have r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n of c r e d i b i l i t y a s a w i t n e s s .
~ e f e n d a n t ' stestimony was of l i t t l e a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e t r i a l judge
i n making a f a i r d i v i s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y .
This Court i n a number of r e c e n t o p i n i o n s concerning t h e
t r i a l c o u r t ' s power t o d i v i d e p r o p e r t y accumulated d u r i n g t h e
m a r r i a g e , h a s h e l d t h e d i v i s i o n should be on an e q u i t a b l e b a s i s
r e g a r d l e s s of who had t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y . Aksamit v . Aksamit,
162 Mont. 266, 511 P.2d 10; L i b r a v. L i b r a , 157 Mont. 252, 484
P.2d 748; Bloom v. Bloom, 150 Mont. 511, 437 P.2d 1. Further,
t h a t t h e c o u r t i n making p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n s may c o n s i d e r p r o p e r t y
owned a t t h e commencement of t h e m a r r i a g e , f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s ,
t h e e f f o r t s of t h e p a r t i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e performance of d u t i e s
and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s r e q u e s t e d of a w i f e . Cook v. Cook, 159
Mont. 98, 495 P.2d 591; Hunnewell v . Hunnewell, 160 Mont. 125,
500 P.2d 1198; Francke v. Francke, 161 Mont. 98, 504 P.2d 990.
Admitted i n t o evidence d u r i n g t h e t r i a l was a f i n a n c i a l
s t a t e m e n t submitted by defendant t o t h e Big Horn County S t a t e
Bank i n A p r i l 1974. I n t h i s record, t h a t statement i s t h e only
i n d i c a t i o n of t h e n e t worth of defendant. Therein he l i s t s h i s
t o t a l a s s e t s a t $3,371,007; h i s l i a b i l i t i e s a t $489,000; and h i s
n e t worth a t $2,882.007.
P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t t h e award t o h e r compared t o t h e
n e t a s s e t s of defendant when computed i n t o percentages would
mean an award of only 9.56%. I f one were n o t t o d i s c o u n t t h e
$175,000 award t o a v a l u e of $100,612.21, p l a i n t i f f would r e c e i v e
approximately 12.2% of t h e p r o p e r t y accumulated during t h e marriage.
P l a i n t i f f argues i n Hodgson v. Hodgson, 156 Mont. 469, 482 P.2d
140, t h e w i f e r e c e i v e d 70% of t h e accumulated a s s e t s , i n Cook -
she r e c e i v e d 69% and t h a t i n Johnson v . Johnson, 137 Mont. 11,
349 P.2d 310, t h e Court spoke of an e q u a l d i v i s i o n of t h a t accumu-
l a t e d under t h e j o i n t e f f o r t s of t h e p a r t i e s a s n o t unreasonable.
While i n a l l t h r e e of t h e c i t e d c a s e s we were c o n s i d e r i n g much
s m a l l e r accumulations than i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , an argument
i s made t h a t under t h e r u l i n g of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e end
of a twelve year p e r i o d , a t an age and h e a l t h period when she
might need i t most, t h e payments w i l l c e a s e .
I n view of t h e u n r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e record a s t o t h e
t r u e n e t worth of defendant a t t h e time of t h e marriage and a t
t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e , t h e judgment i s s e t a s i d e .
W remand t h i s cause t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i t h d i r e c t i o n s
e
t o hold a new t r i a l .
We concur:
Justices
\ B
Hon. R.D. McPhillips, District
Judge, sitting for Mr. Chief Justice
James T. Harrison.