Marriage of Creon v. Creon

No. 81-56 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ELEANOR ANNIE CREON, Petitioner and Respondent, VS . EUGENE EARL CREON, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lincoln Honorable Robert C. Holter, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Moore and Doran, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Ann German, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: August 27, 1981 Decided : ' lQ41 Clerk The c o u r t v a l u e d and d i s t r i b u t e d t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e p a r - t i e s as f o l l o w s : TO t h e Wife: Farm P r o p e r t y , L i n c o l n Co. $ 65,900.00 R e s i d e n c e , 2 1 1 Nevada 12,000.00 J o h n Deere T r a c t o r 4,500.00 Mower, C o n d i t i o n e r 1,800.00 Bailer 100.00 1 2 ' J o h n Deere P l o w 500.00 Bailer, Elevator 65.00 T r u c k Snow P l o w 500.00 S t . R e g i s S t o c k , e x c e p t "Bonus S t o c k " 3,000.00 1971 Chrysler 250.00 1 5 Head L i v e s t o c k 5,000.00 TOTAL $ 93,615-00 To t h e Husband: MC-40 C r a w l e r M. M. Tractor 2 Farm T r a c t o r s C a r p e n t r y and M e c h a n i c s T o o l s B o a t Motors, C h a i n Saws, e t c . 1 9 7 7 Dodge T r u c k 1970 C h r y s l e r 1 9 4 0 Dodge T r u c k 1937 C h r y s l e r I m p e r i a l 5 t h Wheel T r a i l e r Misc. * , A n t i q u e O u t b o a r d M o t o r s , 32/20 P i s t o l , 3 Cameras, Oak T a b l e and D i s t i n c t l y P e r s o n a l Items TOTAL $15,275.00 The c o u r t made t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y i n l i e u o f main- t e n a n c e and o r d e r e d t h a t e a c h p a r t y b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s own attorney fees. On a p p e a l t h e h u s b a n d r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e marital p r o p e r t y and w h e t h e r t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t are s u p p o r t e d b y s u f - f i c i e n t evidence. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e husband c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r o p e r t y is i n e q u i t a b l e and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d to t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n h i s s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e s u p p o r t o f h i s f a m i l y and i m p r o v e m e n t s to t h e p r o p e r t y . The h u s b a n d a l s o m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e v a l u a t i o n o f c e r t a i n items o f Mr. C h i e f ~ u s t i c eF r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. The m a r r i a g e o f t h e p a r t i e s was d i s s o l v e d b y d e c r e e e n t e r e d December 3 1 , 1 9 7 9 . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p r o p e r t y d i v i - s i o n , m a i n t e n a n c e and a t t o r n e y f e e s was r e s e w e d f o r a h e a r i n g w h i c h was h e l d o n J u l y 1 4 and 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f L i n c o l n C o u n t y e n t e r e d i t s 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 n October 8 , 1980. The h u s b a n d a p p e a l s from t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a common l a w m a r r i a g e commencing i n 1951 a f t e r t h e husband o b t a i n e d a d i s s o l u t i o n of a p r i o r marriage. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e p a r t i e s d a t e s from 1 9 4 7 . They h a v e r a i s e d o n e c h i l d who w a s a n a d u l t a t t i m e o f t r i a l . The w i f e a c q u i r e d a r e s i d e n c e i n L i b b y , Montana, d u r i n g h e r p r i o r m a r r i a g e which was d i s s o l v e d i n 1 9 4 7 . I n 1949, a farm of 79 acres was p u r c h a s e d f o r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f $ 5 , 0 0 0 . The d e e d is d a t e d June 2 3 , 1 9 4 9 and i s to " E l e a n o r A. Huffman, s i n g l e woman o f L i b b y , Montana." During t h e m a r r i a g e t h e p a r t i e s r e s i d e d o n t h e f a r m and b o t h worked o n it and c o n t r i b u t e d to i t . I n 1 9 7 1 t h e husband b o u g h t a t r a i l e r h o u s e i n L i b b y and p r i m a r i l y 1i v e d t h e r e t h e r e a f t e r . D u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e t h e husband w a s employed a t S t . R e g i s Lumber Company, f o r m e r l y J . N e i l s Lumber Company. He r e t i r e d in 1 9 8 0 and r e c e i v e s a p e n s i o n o f $596 p e r month and S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s o f $519 p e r month. The husband d e v o t e d h i s wages d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e t o t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e f a m i l y and t o i m p r o v e m e n t s o n t h e f a r m and t h e h o u s e i n L i b b y . S i n c e 1 9 7 8 t h e w i f e h a s sup- p o r t e d h e r s e l f by o c c a s i o n a l e m p l o y m e n t , s a l e of t i m b e r from t h e f a r m and r a i s i n g c a t t l e o n t h e f a r m . She r e c e i v e s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $300 p e r m o n t h , and r e n t from t h e h o u s e i n L i b b y of $100 p e r month. The c o u r t found s h e c o u l d e x p e c t a n income of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $3,000 to $5,000 from t h e farm. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d s h e d e s i r e d t o s t a y on t h e f a r m and make it p r o f i t a b l e . The h u s b a n d had no d e s i r e t o k e e p t h e f a r m , b u t wanted i t s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d . p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y is i n e r r o r . I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n , t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t d o e s n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w is w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y w i t h o u t employment o f c o n s c i e n - t i o u s j u d g m e n t or 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 r e s u l t i n g i n substantial injustice. S e e I n re t h e M a r r i a g e o f S t r a t f o r d (1981) 1 Mont . , 6 3 1 P.2d 296, 38 S t . R e p . 1 0 9 3 ; Z e l l v. Zell ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 2 1 6 , 570 P.2d 33. The ~ i s t r i c t o u r t e x e r c i s e d r e a s o n e d j u d g m e n t i n d i v i d i n g C t h e p r o p e r t y as s e t f o r t h a b o v e , t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e f a c t o r s i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. The h u s b a n d h a s a n i n c a n e o f $13,380 p e r y e a r , w h i l e t h e wife r e c e i v e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $7,200 p e r y e a r from v a r i o u s s o u r c e s i n c l u d i n g t h e f a r m . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t a n award o f t h e f a r m to t h e w i f e would e n a b l e h e r t o meet h e r e x p e n s e s w i t h o u t m a i n t e n a n c e from t h e h u s b a n d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s w e l l aware o f t h e d e b t s o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e e n c u m b r a n c e s o n t h e p r o p e r t y awarded t o e a c h . W i t h o u t t h e farm a n d t h e i n c o m e , however s m a l l , t h a t it p r o v i d e s f o r t h e w i f e , s h e could not support herself. The i m p r o v e m e n t s o n t h e f a r m a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y d e t e r i o r a t e d and t h e l a n d is n o t s u i t a b l e f o r development. N o s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e r e s u l t e d b y t h e award of t h e farm t o t h e w i f e . The h u s b a n d c o n t e s t s t h e v a l u a t i o n g i v e n by t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t t o t h e f i f t h w h e e l t r a i l e r , t h e 1 9 7 7 Dodge t r u c k and t h e tools. The h u s b a n d would v a l u e t h e t r a i l e r a t $0 d u e to a $ 5 , 5 0 0 e n c u m b r a n c e , t h e Dodge t r u c k a t $ 1 , 5 0 0 and t h e tools a t $ 4 0 0 . The t r i a l c o u r t c l e a r l y d i d c o n s i d e r t h e o u t s t a n d i n g d e b t s s e c u r e d b y t h e t r a i l e r and Dodge t r u c k . F u r t h e r , t h e husband p r e s e n t e d n o v a l u a t i o n o f t h e Dodge t r u c k t o t h e c o u r t b e l o w and h e may n o t on a p p e a l a s s e r t a f i g u r e n o t g i v e n f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s consideration. The v a l u e a s s i g n e d to t h e t r u c k is r e a s o n a b l e . The w i f e v a l u e d t h e t o o l s a t $ 3 , 0 0 0 and t h e husband d i s a g r e e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s t r i e r of f a c t d e c i d e d t o a c c e p t t h e w i f e ' s v a l u a t i o n as t o t h e t o o l s , and t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l s t a n d u n l e s s it is c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. We find no error. The t r i a l c o u r t a c c e p t e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s v a l u a t i o n s of s e v e r a l o t h e r items o f p r o p e r t y i n l i e u o f t h e w i f e ' s lower estimates. T h e s e d e c i s i o n s are l e f t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t l s j udgmen t . Af f i r m e d . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: