Marriage of Nunnally v. Nunnally

No. 80-457

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN

1981

I N R THE MARRIAGE O
E F

EVA L. NUNNALLY,

P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t ,

-vs-

RAY L. NUNNALLY,

R e s p o n d e n t and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n a n d f o r t h e County o f Lake, The H o n o r a b l e
James B. W h e e l i s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g ,

C o u n s e l bf Record:

For Appellant:

I a n C h r i s t o p h e r s o n , M i s s o u l a , Montana
Donald J. Louden, M i s s o u l a , Montana

F o r Respondent :

C h r i s t i a n , McCurdy, Ingraham, Wold & P e t e r s o n ,
P o l s o n , Montana

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : February 25, 1981

Decided : APR 2 198!
"I

Filed: &,FJ!? '2 =+ ?gm
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .
The w i f e b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g d i s s o l u t i o n of h e r

m a r r i a g e , c u s t o d y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d o f t h e p a r t i e s , c h i l d sup-
p o r t and d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l assets. The m a t t e r w a s

t r i e d on S e p t e m b e r 26, 1 9 7 9 , b e f o r e t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a

jury. The f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t were e n t e r e d o n O c t o b e r 1, 1 9 8 0 , d i s s o l v i n g t h e m a r r i a g e ,

a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d and c h i l d s u p p o r t to t h e w i f e and

dividing the property. The h u s b a n d c h a l l e n g e s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
and v a l u a t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y .
The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n K a l i s p e l l , Montana, i n

September, 1959. One c h i l d was b o r n as i s s u e o f t h e m a r r i a g e ,
who a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l was 1 6 y e a r s of a g e . The p a r t i e s a l s o

r a i s e d t h e minor c h i l d of t h e husband from a p r i o r m a r r i a g e .

P r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e t h e w i f e owned a h o u s e which was
u n e n c u m b e r e d , as w e l l as a f e e d s u p p l y b u s i n e s s , h o u s e h o l d

f u r n i s h i n g s , a c a r , a t r u c k , and U n i t e d Fund s h a r e s . The h u s b a n d

owned o n e c a r , a small bank a c c o u n t , and a V e t e r a n ' s
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y which w a s h e a v i l y

encumbered. The p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e r e p a y m e n t of t h e V.A.
p o l i c y loan during t h e i r marriage.
D u r i n g t h e e a r l y y e a r s of t h e m a r r i a g e b o t h p a r t i e s worked

i n t h e f e e d s u p p l y b u s i n e s s u n t i l t h e b u s i n e s s was s o l d i n 1 9 6 4 .
The h u s b a n d worked a t s e v e r a l odd j o b s , t h e n began a career as an
electrician. A t t h e t i m e of t r i a l h e was employed a s a j o u r -

neyman wireman f o r e m a n a t $ 1 2 . 8 0 a n h o u r . I n 1969 t h e wife began
working f o r t h e S t a t e L i q u o r S t o r e i n P o l s o n , where s h e is
c u r r e n t l y employed a s t h e s t o r e m a n a g e r . When judgment was
e n t e r e d , t h e w i f e w a s 6 1 y e a r s of a g e and t h e husband w a s 5 6
y e a r s of age.
The h o u s e was e x t e n s i v e l y r e m o d e l e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e of

the parties. I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e h u s b a n d ' s p r o m i s e t o e x c a -

v a t e a b a s e m e n t and r e m o d e l t h e h o u s e , t h e w i f e conveyed a j o i n t
t e n a n c y i n t e r e s t i n t h e house t o t h e husband. The h u s b a n d
c o n t r i b u t e d l a b o r o v e r a p e r i o d of s e v e n y e a r s b u t had n o t

c o m p l e t e d t h e work as o f t h e d a t e of commencement o f t h i s a c t i o n .

The w i f e o b t a i n e d a l o a n and u s e d t h e p r o c e e d s p l u s s a v i n g s of
t h e p a r t i e s t o h a v e t h e work d o n e by o t h e r s . The a p p r a i s a l v a l u e

o f t h e r e m o d e l e d home was f o u n d t o be $ 3 8 , 5 0 0 and t h e t o t a l c o s t
o f r e m o d e l i n g was $ 2 6 , 7 5 7 . 2 0 e x c l u s i v e of t h e p a r t i e s ' own l a b o r .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded t h e h o u s e t o t h e w i f e .

The p a r t i e s owned o t h e r p r o p e r t y w h i c h t h e c o u r t d i v i d e d

b e t w e e n them. The w i f e r e c e i v e d t h e 1 9 5 9 F o r d t r u c k , t h e 1970
P o n t i a c , a l l t h e f u r n i s h i n g s i n t h e house, t h e funds i n h e r

c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t , a l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y ( t h e "Empire B u i l d e r 1 ' ) ,
a n d s h a r e s o f s t o c k i n t h e L i f e I n s u r a n c e Company o f t h e
Northwest. The h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d t h e 1 9 7 1 C h e v r o l e t v a n , t h e

t o o l s w h i c h r e l a t e t o h i s o c c u p a t i o n , t h e V.A. l i f e insurance

p o l i c y , and c e r t a i n u n c a s h e d p a y r o l l c h e c k s e a r n e d by him. The
r e m a i n i n g t o o l s owned by t h e p a r t i e s were t o be d i v i d e d by them

o n a n e q u a l b a s i s , and i f t h e y were u n a b l e t o d o so a master
w o u l d be a p p o i n t e d . C h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount of $150 p e r

month was awarded t o t h e w i f e . In reaching the conclusions the

District Court s p e c i f i c a l l y considered the ages, s k i l l s and

e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l of t h e p a r t i e s . The p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n was i n
l i e u of maintenance.

The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n t h e

v a l u a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and t h a t c e r t a i n
f i n d i n g s were n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e .

S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e f a i l u r e of t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t w o r t h o f t h e p a r t i e s and t o a s s i g n
c u r r e n t v a l u e s t o t h e motor v e h i c l e s , t o o l s and c o i n s owned by
t h e p a r t i e s was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The h u s b a n d f u r t h e r a r g u e s
t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y and e x c e e d e d t h e b o u n d s

o f r e a s o n i n d i s t r i b u t i n g o v e r 8 0 p e r c e n t of t h e assets t o t h e

wife.
 T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d o n numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t m u s t make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t f r o m w h i c h t h e r e c a n be

d e t e r m i n e d a n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s . See e.g. I n re M a r r i a g e

o f Herron (1980), Mont . , 6 0 8 P.2d 9 7 , 37 S t . R e p . 387;

Downs v. Downs ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 592 P.2d 938, 36 St.Rep.
5 7 7 ; V i v i a n v. V i v i a n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont . , 5 8 3 P.2d 1072, 3 5
St.Rep. 1359. While t h e D i s t r i c t Court indeed f a i l e d i n t h i s

case t o make a s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g o f n e t w o r t h , t h e f i n d i n g s as a
w h o l e are s u f f i c i e n t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t w o r t h and t o d e c i d e
whether the d i s t r i b u t i o n was equitable.

A l l o f t h e major a s s e t s were a s s i g n e d v a l u e s by t h e c o u r t ,

w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e mtor v e h i c l e s , t h e t o o l s , and t h e

s i l v e r coins. T h i s omission does not n e c e s s i t a t e a r e v e r s a l i n

v i e w o f t h e 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 s e a s s e t s . S e e Kuntz v .
Kuntz ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 5 9 3 P.2d 4 1 , 3 6 S t . R e p . 662. The
1 9 5 9 F o r d t r u c k w a s a c q u i r e d by t h e w i f e w i t h r e s o u r c e s t r a c e a b l e

t o p r o p e r t y s h e owned p r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e . Due t o i t s a g e t h e

t r u c k o b v i o u s l y had n o m i n a l v a l u e . The 1 9 7 0 P o n t i a c and 1 9 7 1

C h e v r o l e t van were a p p a r e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t t o h a v e

n o m i n a l and e q u a l v a l u e , and e a c h p a r t y r e c e i v e d o n e c a r . All

o f t h e t o o l s n e c e s s a r y t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s b u s i n e s s were a w a r d e d t o
h i m , and t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e t o o l s were t o be d i v i d e d e q u a l l y by

e i t h e r t h e p a r t i e s or a s p e c i a l master. Considering the lengthy
i t e m i z e d l i s t o f t o o l s a t t a c h e d t o t h e f i n d i n g s , t h i s scheme was

a more l o g i c a l and p r a c t i c a l s o l u t i o n t h a n a t t e m p t i n g t o p l a c e a

v a l u e on e a c h t o o l . The c o i n s were s o l d p r i o r t o t r i a l b e c a u s e
t h e w i f e n e e d e d t h e money f o r h o u s e h o l d e x p e n s e s , and t h e r e f o r e
were n o t a m a r i t a l a s s e t a t t h e t i m e of j u d g m e n t . See Fred-
e r i c k s e n v. Fredericksen (1980), Mont. , 6 0 5 P.2d 1 1 3 5 , 37
St.Rep. 191.
The f i n d i n g s o f f a c t as a w h o l e are s u f f i c i e n t l y c o m p l e t e

t o e n a b l e t h i s Court to r e v i e w t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n . The h o u s e ,
a p p r a i s e d a t $ 3 8 , 5 0 0 and encumbered by a $ 1 3 , 0 0 0 l o a n e x e c u t e d
s o l e l y by t h e w i f e , had a n e t v a l u e of $ 2 5 , 5 0 0 . The h o u s e h o l d

furnishings, i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s and s t o c k had a t o t a l v a l u e of

$11,588. T h e s e f i g u r e s a r e e a s i l y computed f r o m t h e f i n d i n g s o f

fact. The h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y w o r t h $ 6 , 1 5 5 , while

t h e w i f e r e c e i v e d p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y w o r t h $ 5 , 4 3 2 and r e a l p r o -

p e r t y w i t h a n e q u i t y of $ 2 5 , 5 0 0 .

Much o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l c o n c e r n e d t h e

c o n t r i b u t i o n s of each p a r t y t o t h e remodeling of t h e house. It

a p p e a r s t h a t a p p e l l a n t is c l a i m i n g t h a t he made a n e q u a l c o n t r i -

b u t i o n t o t h e improvement o f t h e h o u s e and t o t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of

t h e o t h e r a s s e t s and t h a t t h e r e f o r e h e d e s e r v e d o n e - h a l f of t h e

marital estate. A 50/50 d i s t r i b u t i o n is n o t r e q u i r e d w h e r e

t h e r e s u l t would be i n e q u i t a b l e . I n re M a r r i a g e of H e r r o n

( 1980 1 Mon t . , 6 0 8 P.2d 9 7 , 37 S t . R e p . 387. The c r i t e r i a

t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e a s s e t s a r e s e t f o r t h i n sec-

t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. The f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w

i n t h i s case r e f l e c t a c a r e f u l and c o n s c i e n t i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of

the appropriate factors. The c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y f o u n d t h a t t h e

h u s b a n d had a g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y t o a c q u i r e a r e s i d e n c e i n t h e

future. The c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t b e c a u s e of t h e w i f e ' s a g e and

l a c k o f s k i l l s , b e c a u s e c u s t o d y was awarded t o t h e w i f e , and

b e c a u s e t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n was i n l i e u o f m a i n t e n a n c e , t h e

h o u s e and i t s f u r n i s h i n g s s h o u l d be awarded t o h e r . Both p a r t i e s

c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e m a r r i a g e b u t t h e w i f e had a g r e a t e r need f o r

t h e assets.

The 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 j u d g m e n t 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 a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n is shown. Z e l l v. Z e l l

( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 33. Where it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e

D i s t r i c t Court conscientiously considered the appropriate s t a t u -

t o r y c r i t e r i a , t h e j u d g m e n t w i l l be a f f i r m e d .

W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e d i s p u t e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , a r e v i e w of

t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t e a c h f i n d i n g was s u p p o r t e d by t h e
evidence. F i n d i n g s of f a c t s h o u l d n o t be s e t a s i d e u n l e s s

c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and due r e g a r d s h o u l d be g i v e n t o t h e c o u r t ' s

o p p o r t u n i t y t o judge t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s . Rule
52(a), M.R.Civ.P. T h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t e r r o r s i n t h e c o u r t ' s
f i n d i n g s and t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e

findings.
The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s af f irmed.

\
Chief J u s t i c e