No. 82-281
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1983
CONSTANCE A. PALNER, individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
Robert A. Palmer,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
WILLIAM J. PALMER and MILDRED PALMER,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Park
Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Moore, Rice, O'Connell & Refling, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent:
Douglas R. Drysdale, Bozernan, Montana
Submitted on briefs: October 14, 1982
Decided: January 14, 1983
Filed: JAN 14 1983
-
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion
of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t o r d e r i n g t h e p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s be s o l d
and t h e p r o c e e d s d i s t r i b u t e d .
Constance Palmer, r e s p o n d e n t , i s t h e former w i f e o f
R o b e r t Palmer, d e c e a s e d . R o b e r t and h i s b r o t h e r , William
Palmer, a p p e l l a n t , o p e r a t e d a r a n c h l o c a t e d on t h e p r o p e r t y
a t issue. S i n c e t h e d e a t h of R o b e r t , i n November 1981,
William and h i s s o n Brad c o n t i n u e d t o r u n t h e b u s i n e s s .
A f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h i s a c t i o n , W i l l i a m q u i t c l a i m e d h i s
i n t e r e s t t o h i s w i f e , Mildred Palmer, a p p e l l a n t .
Constance f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t f o r p a r t i t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y owned by Constance and
William c o u l d n o t be p a r t i t i o n e d and s h o u l d be s o l d . William's
combined answer and motion r e q u e s t e d t h a t Mildred be a p a r t y
t o t h i s a c t i o n , d e n i e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y s h o u l d be s o l d ,
r e q u e s t e d a p a r t i t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y , and moved f o r a
h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e s . A f t e r t h i s h e a r i n g was h e l d t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t p a r t i t i o n o f t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y
c o u l d n o t be made w i t h o u t m a t e r i a l i n j u r y and p r e j u d i c e t o
t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s , o r d e r e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y be s o l d
and a p p o i n t e d a r e f e r e e . Mildred and W i l l i a m have a p p e a l e d
t h i s judgment.
The s o l e i s s u e i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n
o r d e r i n g t h e s a l e of p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o p a r t i t i o n i n t h i s
issue.
W e f i n d no e r r o r and a f f i r m .
S e c t i o n 70-29-202(1), MCA, l i m i t s p a r t i t i o n by s a l e and
d i v i s i o n of p r o c e e d s t o s i t u a t i o n s where " t h e p r o p e r t y o r
any p a r t i s s o s i t u a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i t i o n c a n n o t be made
without great prejudice to the owners. . ."
Appellants contend that the evidence adduced is insuf-
ficient to support a finding and conclusion that the sale of
property is proper. Appellants believe that the evidence
supports a contrary determination and refer to testimony by
the appraiser to the effect that physical partition of the
properties was possible and that the division proposed by
appellants was fair.
We have reviewed the record and find substantial credible
evidence to support the District Court's findings and conclusions.
Through cross-examination, counsel for respondent
exposed several inadequacies in the appellant's proposed
division. Those noted by the court in its order and substantiated
by the record included restrictions on access, unavailability
of water and no provision in the valuation for different
uses of the properties.
Presented with conflicting testimony, the District
Court thus arrived at the determination that in this instance
partition in kind cannot be made without great prejudice to
the owners. That determination cannot be set aside unless
it is clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. It is not.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
%GJ,QU&~
Chief Justice