No. 14728
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
VERNA B. JACOBSON,
Petitioner and Respondent,
-vs-
THEODORE F. JACOBSON,
d~i);c~nNi-
Respondent and Resptxderrt.
Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District,
Honorable Robert J. Boyd, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For - ~ e t i b i & & , I-
Poore, Roth, Robischon & Robinson, Butte, Montana
For Respondent:
Corette, Smith, Dean, Pohlman & Allen, Butte, Montana
James J. Masar, Deer Lodge, Montana
---
Submitted on briefs: August 2, 1979
Decided :
iJCI 5
- fgj
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
his i s an a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t d i s s o l v i n g t h e marriage of
Theodore and Verna Jacobson and d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e m a r i t a l
property of t h e p a r t i e s . The husband a p p e a l s from t h a t
p o r t i o n of t h e d e c r e e a f f e c t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n .
The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n B u t t e , Montana, on March
1 6 , 1952. A t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , Verna Jacobson was 47 y e a r s
o f a g e and Theodore Jacobson was 49. The p a r t i e s have two
c h i l d r e n , a son aged 22 r e s i d i n g i n A l a s k a , and a n o t h e r son
aged 1 8 who g r a d u a t e d from h i g h s c h o o l i n 1978 and r e s i d e s
on t h e f a m i l y r a n c h n e a r Deer Lodge, Montana, i n Powell
County. Ted Jacobson was r a i s e d on t h e r a n c h and h i s s o l e
o c c u p a t i o n h a s been r a n c h i n g . H i s f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n ended i n
t h e n i n t h grade. Verna Jacobson i s a h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u a t e
who worked a s a s e c r e t a r y p r i o r t o h e r m a r r i a g e t o Ted.
I n 1948 Ted and h i s b r o t h e r formed a p a r t n e r s h i p t o
o p e r a t e t h e ranch. I n t h a t y e a r t h e y l e a s e d a p o r t i o n of
t h e r a n c h from t h e i r f a t h e r f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f r a i s i n g
potatoes. I n 1953 t h e b r o t h e r s and t h e i r wives l e a s e d t h e
e n t i r e home r a n c h and bought some c a t t l e from t h e i r f a t h e r ,
and i n 1959, t h e y p u r c h a s e d t h e r a n c h on a c o n t r a c t f o r
deed. The p a r t n e r s h i p c o n t i n u e d u n t i l 1969. Thus, when t h e
p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d i n 1952, Ted and h i s b r o t h e r were
a l r e a d y i n t h e p r o c e s s of t a k i n g o v e r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e
ranch. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t "Ted Jacobson w a s and
i s a hard-working and a b l e r a n c h e r . " Through h i s e f f o r t s
and knowledge o f t h e b u s i n e s s , t h e v a l u e of t h e Jacobson
r a n c h i n c r e a s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y b o t h d u r i n g t h e t i m e i t was
o p e r a t e d i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h h i s b r o t h e r and a f t e r t h e
partnership terminated in 1969. Throughout the marriage of
the parties, Ted did the outside work on the ranch. In
addition to the usual ranch work he made substantial improve-
ments to an existing house located on the ranch, and he and
his brother later assisted in building a new house in which
the parties resided. A significant part of the increased
value of the ranch can be attributed to the installation of
a lateral irrigation system by Ted and his brother in 1966
and the installation of a sprinkler irrigation system by Ted
in 1975.
For her part, Verna performed the duties of a ranch
wife and homemaker for over 25 years. Although she did not
participate in the outside work, she spent great amounts of
time caring for her two sons, the elder of whom had heart
problems discovered at an early age, and the younger, who
was found at an early age to have a serious physical ail-
ment. She spent a considerable amount of time working with
the younger son to assist him in completing school. Until
1969 Verna boarded the hired hands, generally feeding them
three meals a day in the family home. In addition to these
contributions, she did the bookkeeping for the ranch after
the partnership between Ted and his brother terminated in
1969, maintaining the ranch record books and accounts,
keeping track of ranch income and expenses, paying the
bills, paying the ranch help, keeping the records necessary
for ranch income withholding, social security, and workers'
compensation, and delivering this information to their
accountant each year for the purposes of preparing income
tax returns. She also occasionally drove to town to pick up
ranch supplies.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a f t e r r e c i t i n g t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o
t h e m a r r i a g e made by e a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s , concluded t h a t
t h e p a r t i e s had made e q u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e m a r i t a l
e s t a t e and t h a t t h e w i f e had a c q u i r e d a v e s t e d one-half
i n t e r e s t i n a l l p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g
t h e i r marriage.
"None of t h e p r o p e r t y now owned by t h e p a r t i e s
was a c q u i r e d d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h i n -
h e r i t a n c e o r g i f t and t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e
w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n a s a homemaker and m o t h e r ,
along with t h e husband's c o n t r i b u t i o n i n doing
work on t h e r a n c h , i s e n t i t l e d t o e q u a l w e i g h t
and t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t M r s . Jacobson a c q u i r e d
a v e s t e d one-half (1/2) i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y
accumulated by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . "
(Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
P u r s u a n t t o t h i s f i n d i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment
e n t e r e d on J a n u a r y 25, 1979, g i v e s t h e husband t h e o p t i o n t o
purchase t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e m a r i t a l property. The
t o t a l m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , c o n s i s t i n g p r i m a r i l y of t h e f a m i l y
r a n c h , w a s found t o have a v a l u e o f $1,147,786. Within
t h r e e months of t h e d e c r e e , t h e husband h a s t h e o p t i o n t o
e i t h e r pay t o t h e w i f e one-half o f t h e t o t a l sum o r t o pay
2 0 p e r c e n t down w i t h t h e b a l a n c e p a y a b l e i n t h i r t y e q u a l
a n n u a l i n s t a l l m e n t s w i t h i n t e r e s t a t t h e r a t e of 7 p e r c e n t
p e r annum. These i n s t a l l m e n t s a r e t o be s e c u r e d by a mort-
gage on a l l r e a l p r o p e r t y . I f t h e husband f a i l s t o e x e r c i s e
h i s option t o purchase t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t , t h e property i s
t o be s o l d on t h e m a r k e t f o r c a s h a t a p r i c e a g r e e a b l e t o
the parties. I f no b u y e r s a r e s e c u r e d , t h e p r o p e r t y i s t o
be s o l d a t a p u b l i c s a l e w i t h i n a f u r t h e r t h r e e months from
t h e d a t e of t h e decree.
The a p p e l l a n t husband r a i s e s two i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n and
f a i l t o e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s by n e g l e c t i n g
t o c o n s i d e r t h e more s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h e husband
t o t h e development and m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y ?
2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n
p r o v i d i n g a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e a p u r c h a s e by t h e husband o f
one-half of t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l a s s e t s a t a n i n t e r e s t r a t e
o f 7 p e r c e n t p e r annum?
S e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, states i n relevant part:
" I n a proceeding f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of a marriage
... the court ... shall . .. f i n a l l y equi-
t a b l y a p p o r t i o n between t h e p a r t i e s t h e p r o p e r t y
and a s s e t s b e l o n g i n g t o e i t h e r o r b o t h , however
and whenever a c q u i r e d and w h e t h e r t i t l e t h e r e t o
i s i n t h e name o f t h e husband o r w i f e o r b o t h .
I n making a p p o r t i o n m e n t t h e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r
-
t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a q e and [ o t h e r f a c t o r s ]
... The c o u r t s h a l l a l s o c o n s i d e r . . . -
the
c o n t r i b u t i o n -f -a s p o u s e -s-a homemaker - -
o a or to
- f a m i l y u n i t . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
the -
The s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w o f a D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s p o s i -
t i o n o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s upon a d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e i s
w e l l settled:
"A D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s f a r - r e a c h i n g d i s c r e t i o n i n
r e s o l v i n g p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n s , and i t s judgment
w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d u n l e s s a c l e a r abuse of d i s -
c r e t i o n i s shown. Kaasa v. Kaasa ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
Mont. , 591 P.2d 1110, 1113, 36 St.Rep. 425,
428; K r a m e r v. Kramer ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. I
580 P.2d 439, 35 St.Rep. 700; Eschenburg v .
Eschenburg ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 247, 557 P.2d 1014.
The t e s t f o r r e v i e w i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s -
c r e t i o n is: Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h e e x e r -
cise of i t s d i s c r e t i o n act a r b i t r a r i l y without
employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment, o r e x c e e d
t h e bounds o f r e a s o n i n view o f a l l t h e circum-
s t a n c e s ? Kuntz, 593 P.2d a t 43; J o r g e n s e n ,
s u p r a ; K r a m e r , s u p r a ; Z e l l v. Z e l l (1977),
Mont. , 570 P.2d 33, 34 St.Rep. 1 0 7 0 ; B e r -
thiaume v. Berthiaume (1977) , Mont. I
567 P.2d 1388, 34 St.Rep. 921." Aanenson v .
Aanenson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. I P.2d
, 36 St.Rep. 1525, 1528.
The d u t y o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s t o c o n s i d e r t h e
s t a t u t o r y c r i t e r i a and e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e m a r i t a l
assets. Each case must b e l o o k e d a t i n d i v i d u a l l y w i t h a n
eye t o i t s unique circumstances. Aanenson, s u p r a ; J o r g e n s o n
Jorgenson Mont.
36 St.Rep. 233, 237; Cook v. Cook ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 98, 104,
495 P.2d 591. "An e q u a l d i v i s i o n under normal c o n d i t i o n s o f
p r o p e r t y accumulated t h r o u g h j o i n t e f f o r t s i s n o t r e g a r d e d
a s unreasonable." Cook, 159 Mont. a t 103, 495 P.2d a t 594,
q u o t i n g Johnson v. Johnson ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 137 Mont. 11, 1 7 , 349
P.2d 310. See a l s o Z e l l v. Z e l l (1977), Mont.
570 P.2d 33, 34 St.Rep. 1070; Roe v . Roe ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont.
79, 83, 556 P.2d 1246, 1248.
I n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e t a i l e d t h e
respective contributions of the p a r t i e s i n i t s findings of
fact. T h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o sup-
p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s equal d i s t r i b u t i o n a s an e q u i t a b l e
a p p o r t i o n m e n t of t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . There was no a b u s e
o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e lower c o u r t , which f o l l o w e d t h e s t a t u -
t o r y mandate of s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, t o "consider .. .
t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f a spouse a s a homemaker o r t o t h e f a m i l y
unit."
A p p e l l a n t ' s second c o n t e n t i o n i s more troublesome.
A p p e l l a n t s t a t e s t h a t i t h a s always been t h e p o l i c y of t h e
c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e t h a t a farm o r r a n c h s h o u l d be k e p t
i n t a c t and o p e r a t e d a s a u n i t . Appellant argues t h a t t h e
o p t i o n a f f o r d e d t o him by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o p u r c h a s e h i s
former w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a m i l y r a n c h by p a y i n g 20
p e r c e n t down and t h i r t y a n n u a l i n s t a l l m e n t s a t 7 p e r c e n t
i n t e r e s t i s n o t an economically r e a l i s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e . He
c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r a n c h d o e s n o t g e n e r a t e s u f f i c i e n t income
t o s u p p o r t such payments, t h a t i t w i l l have t o be s o l d t o
s a t i s f y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c r e e , and t h u s , t h a t it w i l l be
l o s t t o t h e s o n s of t h e p a r t i e s who a r e opposed t o i t s s a l e ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e younger s o n , who i s now working on t h e
ranch. I t is a l l e g e d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e District Court
abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n .
I t i s c l e a r t h a t a D i s t r i c t C o u r t may make a n e q u i t a b l e
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and y e t a b u s e i t s
d i s c r e t i o n i n c a r r y i n g o u t t h e award. I n Kruse v. Kruse
(1978) , - Mont. , 586 P.2d 294, 298, 35 St.Rep. 1502,
1507, t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y made a n e q u a l a p p o r t i o n m e n t
o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , b u t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g
t o c o n s i d e r t h e a s s e t s a t t h e i r c u r r e n t m a r k e t v a l u e which
r e s u l t e d i n t h e w i f e r e c e i v i n g less t h a n h e r e q u a l s h a r e .
Montana c a s e s have a c c e p t e d t h e p r e m i s e t h a t a r a n c h o r
farm s h o u l d be k e p t i n t a c t and o p e r a t e d a s a u n i t . A policy
t o t h a t e f f e c t is reflected i n decisions involving the
d i s p o s i t i o n o f f a r m i n g and r a n c h i n g p r o p e r t y : Kaasa v.
Kaasa (1979) , Mont. , 591 P.2d 1 1 1 0 , 1113, 36
St.Rep. 425, 428; I n r e M a r r i a g e o f Brown ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont.
, 587 P.2d 361, 35 St.Rep. 1733; B i e g a l k e v. B i e g a l k e
( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 311, 564 P.2d 987; Hunnewell v . Hunnewell
( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 1 2 5 , 500 P.2d 1198, 1202.
Biegalke involved f a c t s similar t o those i n t h e p r e s e n t
case. In referring t o the District Court's property d i s t r i -
b u t i o n whereby t h e husband was g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o
p u r c h a s e h i s former w i f e ' s m a r i t a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a m i l y
f a r m by making a down payment and p a y i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g
balance i n annual i n s t a l l m e n t s , t h i s Court s t a t e d , " [ t l h e
d i v i s i o n w a s based on t h e premise t h a t t h e ranch be k e p t
i n t a c t and o p e r a t e d . " B i e g a l k e , 172 Mont. a t 314. Likewise
i n Hunnewell, where t h e c o u p l e moved o n t o t h e r a n c h which
had been owned by t h e h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r and where t h e husband
had been a r a n c h e r a l l h i s l i f e , t h e c o u r t gave t h e husband
t h e o p t i o n t o m e e t a l l b i d s t o purchase h i s former w i f e ' s
i n t e r e s t i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e by making a down payment and
paying t h e remaining b a l a n c e i n annual i n s t a l l m e n t s , s t a t i n g
"[tlhe purpose of this provision is to permit [the husband]
to continue to ranch and farm the premises without being met
with a sudden emergency to raise money, the Court being
aware that all the property is presently mortgaged and such
an emergency demand might cause hardship." Hunnewell, 500
P.2d 1202.
The District Court valued the marital estate, consist-
ing primarily of the family ranch, at $1,147,786 and found
that Verna Jacobson was entitled to one-half of that property
as her marital share. Pursuant to this finding, the District
Court's judgment gives Ted Jacobson the option to purchase
Verna's interest in the marital property. Within three
months of the decree, the husband must purchase her share by
paying her one-half of the total sum in cash, or exercise
his option to pay her 20 percent down with the balance
payable annually in 30 equal installments with interest at 7
percent, the installments secured by a mortgage on the real
property. Otherwise, the ranch will be sold on the market
or at a public sale to generate cash to satisfy Verna's
marital share.
Translated to dollar amounts, the installment option
entails annual installments of approximately $34,000.
Appellant contends that this amount is practically equiva-
lent to the total annual cash income of the ranch before
purchases of equipment are taken into consideration. He
argues that after the purchase of necessary replacement
equipment, annual cash income for the ranch has averaged
about $16,000 per year. Therefore, according to appellant,
the ranch does not generate sufficient income to support the
installment payments that would be required under the pur-
chase option given him by the District Court, and so the
District Court allegedly abused its discretion.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , w h i l e i t d i d make e x t e n s i v e f i n d -
i n g s o f f a c t c o n c e r n i n g t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and e a c h p a r t y ' s
c o n t r i b u t i o n t h e r e t o , d i d n o t make a f i n d i n g t o t h e e f f e c t
t h a t i t would be f i n a n c i a l l y p o s s i b l e f o r a p p e l l a n t t o
s a t i s f y t h e judgment s h o r t o f s e l l i n g t h e r a n c h . It is,
however, i m p l i c i t i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment t h a t t h e
c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s i n t h e d e c r e e t o be eco-
n o m i c a l l y r e a l i s t i c c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r a n c h ' s income-producing
c a p a c i t y and i t s borrowing c a p a c i t y . There i s s u f f i c i e n t
evidence i n t h e record t o support such a conclusion; t h e r e -
f o r e , t h e r e was no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n .
The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g t h e c o n c l u s i o n
t h a t t h e i n s t a l l m e n t purchase o p t i o n i s an economically
r e a l i s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e i s a s follows: (1) t h e r a n c h i s unen-
cumbered s a v e f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c r e e , from which t h e
c o u r t may have i n f e r r e d t h a t i t s borrowing c a p a c i t y i s h i g h ;
( 2 ) t h e h u s b a n d ' s b r o t h e r and former p a r t n e r i n t h e r a n c h i s
a r a n c h e r and a banker who might be a b l e t o p r o c u r e a l o a n
o r l e n d money f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t ; (3)
t h e r e i s a c a s h a s s e t h e l d i n t r u s t by one of t h e a t t o r n e y s
f o r t h e w i f e i n t h e amount of $ 3 3 , 7 9 2 l e s s c e r t a i n e x p e n s e s ,
r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e s a l e of c a t t l e i n t h e p r e -
vious year; ( 4 ) t h e c a s h income of t h e r a n c h h a s a v e r a g e d
a p p r o x i m a t e l y $35,000 a y e a r b e f o r e equipment p u r c h a s e s , and
$16,000 a f t e r p u r c h a s e s o f equipment; and ( 5 ) t h e p a r t i e s '
a c c o u n t a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e maximum a n n u a l payment t h a t a n
o p e r a t o r of t h e r a n c h c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d t o pay
o u t o f r a n c h income t o p u r c h a s e a n e q u i t y i n t h e r a n c h would
b e t h e t o t a l c a s h f l o w income of t h e r a n c h .
~t must be remembered t h a t t h e p r i m a r y r i g h t t o be
c o n s i d e r e d i n d i s p o s i n g of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i s t h e r i g h t of
each p a r t y t o an e q u i t a b l e apportionment of t h e m a r i t a l
assets. While i t i s t h e p o l i c y of t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e
t o a v o i d s p l i t t i n g up a r a n c h o r f o r c i n g i t s s a l e where
t h e r e i s any r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t p o l i c y , however
commendable, c a n n o t be used t o o v e r r i d e t h e w i f e ' s r i g h t t o
a n e q u i t a b l e s h a r e of t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . In the present
c a s e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t gave t h e husband t h e o p t i o n t o
p u r c h a s e h i s former w i f e ' s s h a r e by p a y i n g 20 p e r c e n t down
and p a y i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g b a l a n c e i n a n n u a l i n s t a l l m e n t s o v e r
t h i r t y years a t 7 percent interest. The w i f e i s 47 y e a r s of
age. A payment s c h e d u l e o f more t h a n t h i r t y y e a r s would n o t
a l l o w h e r t o r e c e i v e t h e e q u a l m a r i t a l s h a r e t o which s h e i s
e n t i t l e d w i t h i n h e r l i f e expectancy. The 7 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t
r a t e i s below t h a t c h a r g e d by commercial and governmental
l e n d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s , The c a s e o f I n re M a r r i a g e o f Brown
(1978) Mont. , 587 P.2d 361, 367, 35 St.Rep. 1733,
merely suggested t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court could o r d e r t h e
remaining balance p a i d without i n t e r e s t . I t d i d not say
t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t a l l o w i n t e r e s t , and t h e
a l l o w a n c e of i n t e r e s t l i e s w i t h i n t h e c o u r t ' s sound d i s c r e -
tion.
s
The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
/4 a f f i r m e d .
W e concur: