No. 13362
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
PAUL RIEGALKE,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
Counter-Claim-Defendant,
MADELINE BIEGALKE,
Defendant and Counter-Claim
Plaintiff.
Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District,
Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Sandall, Cavan and Edwards, Billings, Montana
John Cavan argued, Billings, Montana
For Respondent :
Cate, Lynaugh, Fitzgerald and Huss, Billings,
Montana
Jerome J. Cate argued, Billings, Montana
Submitted: January 25, 1977
Decided :
dday 2 3 $?1
I-
Filed :
ad)l+ Clerk
M r . 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 Court,
This i s an appeal from t h e property d i v i s i o n contained
i n a decree of divorce granted t o both p a r t i e s i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , Custer County.
P l a i n t i f f i s now 55 years of age. A s a young man before
h i s marriage and upon t h e death of h i s f a t h e r , he took over and
operated t h e family farm near Havre, Montana. H has spent h i s
e
e n t i r e a d u l t l i f e up t o t h i s time operating farms and ranches.
Defendant i s approximately t h e same age a s p l a i n t i f f and
has t h e same l i f e - s t y l e background.
The p a r t i e s were married i n 1948. They resided on t h e
Havre farm u n t i l 1951, when they purchased t h e present farm-
ranch which i s located 14 miles west of Miles C i t y , Montana,
c o n s i s t i n g of approximately 6,000 a c r e s . The purchase p r i c e
i n 1951 was $120,000.00. Since 1951, s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l t r a c t s
have been added t o t h e family holdings. A t t h e o r i g i n a l purchase,
$57,000.00 was paid i n t o t h e farm-ranch by p l a i n t i f f o u t of funds
received from t h e s a l e of t h e Havre holdings. When purchased
t h e Miles City farm-ranch was run down, with some o l d b u i l d i n g s ,
no water, plumbing o r e l e c t r i c i t y ,
A f t e r t h e purchase a t Miles City t h e defendant c o n t r i b u t e d
a l l t h e finances she possessed f o r l i v i n g expenses and a down
payment on farm machinery, f o r a t o t a l of approximately $1,800.00
t o $1,900.00.
During t h e next 8 y e a r s , 6 c h i l d r e n were born. In addition
t o performing farm chores, defendant r a i s e d t h e c h i l d r e n under
extremely adverse conditions. There was never more than t h e bare
n e c e s s i t i e s of l i f e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e family on t h e farm o r
elsewhere. Defendant drove t h e c h i l d r e n t o school f o r a number
of years and then t h e family obtained a 3 o r 4 plex i n Miles
City which defendant and c h i l d r e n occupied during t h e school years.
Defendant t e s t i f i e d she s o l d books door t o door t o pay t u i t i o n
f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ' s schooling and t o supplement t h e food budget,
etc. The standard of l i v i n g seemed unnecessarily harsh i n view
of an unoccupied, almost complete b r i c k home of 3,000 square f e e t
a t t h e farm, standing next t o t h e family h o u s e t r a i l e r f o r some
19 years. This demonstrates t h a t defendant gave a l l she was capable
of giving i n l a b o r , s e l f - d e n i a l and money aver a period of y e a r s ,
during which farm b u i l d i n g s were e r e c t e d and t h e farm improved
i n t o one of t h e f i n e s t farm-ranches i n t h a t a r e a of Montana, t o g e t h e r
with a f i n a n c i a l improvement of around a m i l l i o n d o l l a r s over
t h e o r i g i n a l purchase p r i c e .
The divorce a c t i o n was t r i e d September 18, 1975. The c o u r t
entered i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t s and conclusions of law and decree
January 20, 1976. The p a r t i e s were each granted an a b s o l u t e
decree of divorce one from t h e o t h e r . P l a i n t i f f was awarded
custody of one minor g i r l and defendant awarded custody of t h e
remaining minor boy, Paul E r i c , a r e t a r d e d c h i l d .
The c o u r t found 1 ) t h e husband and wife had during t h e
course of t h e i r marriage increased t h e n e t value of t h e i r a s s e t s
approximately $1,000,000.00 over and above money o r property
c o n t r i b u t e d a t t h e time of t h e marriage; 2) t h a t t h e accumula-
t i o n of wealth was t h e r e s u l t of hard work and s a c r i f i c e c o n t r i -
buted by t h e p a r t i e s and t h e immediate members of t h e i r family;
and 3) 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 ranch wife, homemaker
and mother i s e q u a l i n v a l u e t o t h e husband's c o n t r i b u t i o n a s
a ranch l a b o r e r and manager.
The p r o p e r t y of t h e p a r t i e s was d i v i d e d i n t h i s manner:
(1) P l a i n t i f f r e c e i v e d t h e ranch-farm and a l l p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y , e t c . i n connection w i t h i t s o p e r a t i o n .
(2) Defendant received t h e p r o p e r t y i n Miles C i t y .
(3) Defendant t o be p a i d h e r i n t e r e s t i n m a r i t a l a s s e t s
of $325,000.00, i n t h i s way:
a. Miles C i t y p r o p e r t y $20,000.00 (Mortgage $9,000.00).
b. $5,000.00 immediately.
c. $50,000.00 w i t h i n 60 days following e n t r y of
decree ( t h i s d a t e s h a l l be t h e a n n i v e r s a r y d a t e of
payment of annual subsequent i n s t a l l m e n t s ) .
d. One y e a r from d a t e of d e c r e e $50,000.00.
e. Remaining balance of $200,000.00 t o be p a i d
i n annual i n s t a l l m e n t s of $20,000.00, no i n t e r e s t i f
payment p a i d when due.
f. A f t e r payment of $75,000.00 by p l a i n t i f f ; upon
showing of l o s s e s beyond h i s c o n t r o l he can apply t o
t h e c o u r t f o r e q u i t a b l e adjustment of payment of t h e
balance.
The d i v i s i o n was 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 operated. I f t h e ranch i s s o l d by p l a i n t i f f o r h e i r s
b e f o r e payment schedule i s complete, d e f e n d a n t ' s e q u i t y w i l l be
$500,000.00 l e s s $27,083.00 ($325,000.00 d i v i d e d by 12) f o r
each f u l l y e a r of o p e r a t i o n a s a ranch u n i t . I f t h e ranch i s s o l d
on a c o n t r a c t t h e formula i s changed, b u t d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e r e s t
remains t h e same f i g u r e .
P l a i n t i f f appeals from t h e p o r t i o n of t h e f i n d i n g s of
f a c t and conclusions of law and f i n a l decree which d i v i d e s t h e
a s s e t s i n t h e manner s e t f o r t h , on t h e ground t h e c o u r t abused
i t s d i s c r e t i o n and t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e f i n d i n g s , conclusions and
decree i s n o t supported by t h e evidence o r t h e law.
P l a i n t i f f i n h i s b r i e f on appeal discussed t h e major cases
s i n c e 1960 t o d a t e which had t o do with formulation of t h e law
on d i v i s i o n of property accumulated during a marriage and has
e x t r a c t e d t h e following g u i d e l i n e s from those cases:
1. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t does have t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make
an e q u i t a b l e adjustment of property r i g h t s between t h e husband
and wife .
2. N p a r t i c u l a r pleading i s necessary, nor i s any recog-
o
nized cause of a c t i o n necessary t o give t h e c o u r t such j u r i s d i c -
tion. The only requirement i s t h a t t h e language i n t h e pleading
p u t s t h e p a r t i e s on n o t i c e t h a t t h e c o u r t i s being asked t o make such
an add U s tment .
3. The j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t t o make such adjustment
i s founded on i t s inherent power i n e q u i t y cases t o g r a n t complete
relief.
4. The t i t l e t o o r possession of property (except a s t o
property n o t acquired by 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 ) cannot
d e f e a t t h e power of t h e c o u r t t o make such an adjustment.
5. There i s no presumption of g i f t a s between husband and
wife i n property matters.
6. The c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a d j u s t i n g
property r i g h t s between husband and wife must be reasonable
under t h e circumstances of t h e case and t h e r e i s no f i x e d formula
o r r a t i o t o be applied i n each instance.
7. I n e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e c o u r t ' s adjustment
of property r i g h t s must be reasonable and e q u i t a b l y r e l a t e d
t o t h e "contribution" of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of such
assets.
8. I n determining "contribution", t h e c o u r t may consider
cash c o n t r i b u t i o n s ; work o r e f f o r t d i r e c t l y f u r t h e r i n g t h e
a c q u i s i t i o n o r i n c r e a s e i n value of m a r i t a l a s s e t s ; t h e per-
formance of t h e ordinary d u t i e s of t h e wife o r husband and any
e x t r a o r d i n a r y s e r v i c e s performed by t h e wife o r husband; any
o t h e r m a t t e r s i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l case which t h e c o u r t reasonably
f e e l s constitutes a 'lcontribution", d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t , t o such
acquisition.
9. The c o u r t should consider t h e s i z e o r value of t h e
e s t a t e t o be a d j u s t e d and t h e needs of t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s f o r
support and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a b i l i t i e s t o support themselves.
10. Th&_ c o u r t should consider t h e n a t u r e of t h e m a r i t a l
a s s e t s ; whether o r not they a r e r e a d i l y d i v i s i b l e ; whether o r
not they, o r any p a r t t h e r e o f , a r e necessary t o one p a r t y o r t h e
o t h e r t o c a r r y o u t t h e terms of t h e court's decree, such a s a
payment of money i n l i e u of property.
W agree t h a t t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s have been e s t a b l i s h e d i n
e
t h e l i n e of cases on t h i s s u b j e c t during t h e p a s t 15 years.
Although t h e i n s t a n t case pre-dates t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e
Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, t h e provisions of t h a t a c t f o r
c o n s i d e r a t i o n of Property d i v i s i o n a r e very s i m i l a r t o t h e case
law. Section 48-321, R.C.M. 1947.
P l a i n t i f f suggests t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of c o n t r i -
bution by t h e defendant i s not supported by t h e evidence. Her
cash c o n t r i b u t i o n s a r e i n t h e record. The statement t h a t she took
no a c t i v e p a r t i n t h e farming a s such, i s n o t c o r r e c t . This
kind of s e l e c t i v e treatment of t h e record d i s r e g a r d s t h e t e s t i -
mony of defendant, which i s c r e d i b l e and was n o t r e f u t e d , about
doing a man's work and wearing o u t h e r wedding band chopping
wood, t u r n i n g b a l e s i n t h e f i e l d , chasing c a t t l e on f o o t and
most important t h e a s s i s t a n c e rendered while p l a i n t i f f was period-
i c a l l y d i s a b l e d f o r periods of s e v e r a l months a t a time w i t h a
chronic d i s e a s e . The reason she could n o t spend more time i n t h e
f i e l d s seems t o be due i n p a r t t o t h e f a c t p l a i n t i f f b l e s s e d
h e r with something l i k e 6 c h i l d r e n i n 8 y e a r s , t h e c a r e of them
somewhat l i m i t i n g t h e time a woman could spend out-of-doors.
The a l l e g a t i o n t h e family moved t o Miles City i n 1965
and defendant has only occasionally been t o t h e ranch s i n c e i s
n o t a f a i r statement of t h e record. P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d he moved
t h e family t o town and then sold t h e t r a i l e r house they occupied
and t h e r e was no o t h e r home f o r them. Defendant t e s t i f i e d she
continued t o cook--do a l l t h i n g s asked of h e r a t t h e farm u n t i l
she got h e r divorce papers. The testimony has n o t been rebutted.
The record does not support t h e a l l e g a t i o n by p l a i n t i f f
t h a t t h e t r i a l judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n when he found t h e
c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e accumulation of m a r i t a l a s s e t s
t o be equal. Additionally t h e law c i t e d and approved by p l a i n t i f f
supports t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
The remaining i s s u e presented by p l a i n t i f f concerns t h e
a p p r a i s a l of t h e r e a l and personal property of t h e p a r t i e s by
Don Mullen, of Mullen Realty, Miles C i t y , Montana.
I t was agreed by t h e p a r t i e s t h a t Mullen be appointed by
the court. H i s a p p r a i s a l was accepted a s Exhibit "N", by t h e
c o u r t without o b j e c t i o n . H i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s were s t i p u l a t e d .
P l a i n t i f f advised t h e c o u r t t h a t he only wished t o examine t h e
witness because of a disagreement w i t h a p o r t i o n of t h e c o n t e n t s
of t h e e x h i b i t .
Defendant contends t h e a p p r a i s e r missed 640 a c r e s of
property, 125 cows, 90 y e a r l i n g s , 7 b u l l s , 35 s t e e r s and 15
h e i f e r s owned by t h e p a r t i e s . He d i d n o t a p p r a i s e min6ral r i g h t s ,
cash on hand, o r a $14,000.00 Mercedes automobile owned by
plaintiff.
P l a i n t i f f questions and o b j e c t s t o values placed on t h e land
by t h e a p p r a i s e r , i.e. admits i n c o u r t he was high on t h e grazing
land. P l a i n t i f f questions t h e $250.00 per a c r e on crop land and
questions t h e method of a p p r a i s a l .
W could continue on w i t h t h i s argument b u t t h e f a c t remains
e
t h a t both p a r t i e s accepted t h e a p p r a i s e r and h i s r e p o r t and d i d
n o t o b j e c t t o h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o r Exhibit "N", the appraisal.
A t t h i s p o i n t t h e t r i e r of t h e f a c t s has t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o g i v e
whatever weight he sees f i t t o t h e testimony of t h e e x p e r t from
0 t o 100%. Nelson v. C &C Plywood Corp. 154 Mont. 414, 422, 465
P.2d 314. The t r i a l judge has done t h i s .
Considering a l l of t h e evidence a t t h e t r i a l , t h e c o u r t
found (1) a one m i l l i o n d o l l a r i n c r e a s e i n value of t h e m a r i t a l
a s s e t s over and above c o n t r i b u t i o n a t t h e time of t h e marriage,
(2) defendant's c o n t r i b u t i o n was equal t o p l a i n t i f f ' s ; (3) de-
fendant received approximately 26% of t h e value but t h i s a l s o
includes t h e c a r e and education of E r i c , a r e t a r d e d boy, who i n
a l l p r o b a b i l i t y w i l l not be emancipated a t t h e l e g a l age of
majority b u t w i l l remain with h i s mother. The only o b l i g a t i o n
p l a i n t i f f h i s i s t o assume major medical, d e n t a l and education ex-
pense, undefined.
Finding no abuse of t h e c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n and no e r r o r s i n
law, t h e judgment of t h e t r i a l cou
- 8 -
We Concur: