No. 81-433
I N T I E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE: O F MOIJTANA
1982
I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F
PE-IYLLIS M. GOODI4UNDSON,
P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent,
DARRELL D. GOODMUNDSGN,
R e s 2 o n d e n t a n d ilppellant.
Apgeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e ? J i n t l i J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of T e t o n , T h e H o n o r a b l e
J o e l G. R o t h , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l of R e c o r d :
For A p p e l l a n t :
Alexander & Eaucus, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Conner, Baiz & Olson, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : O c t o b e r 26, 1982
Decided: December 23, 1982
Filed:
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y 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 husband appeals from judgment issued by the District
Court of the Eighth J u d i c i a l District , Cascade County, d i s tri-
b u t i n g t h e marital p r o p e r t y of t h e p a r t i e s .
The h u s b a n d claims t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d to e x e r c i s e
independent judgment by adopting most of the wife's proposed
findings.
Because the District Court 's judgment is s u p p o r t e d by the
record, we cannot s a y t h e District Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n .
The j u d g m e n t is a f f i r m e d .
The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d o n O c t o b e r 3 , 1 9 5 4 . The m a r r i a g e
was d i s s o l v e d F e b r u a r y 2 3 , 1981. Throughout the m a r r i a g e , the
h u s b a n d h a s worked as a d r y l a n d g r a i n f a r m e r i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h
h i s father. The p a r t n e r s h i p farmed a b o u t 2 , 4 8 0 a c r e s a t t h e t i m e
the wife petitioned f o r dissolution. The 2 , 4 8 0 a c r e s are f a r m e d
as one u n i t d e s p i t e s e p a r a t e t i t l e s . The husband h a s 3 2 5 acres
i n h i s name, h i s p a r e n t s h a v e 640 a c r e s i n t h e i r names, t h e hus-
band and father own 1,043 acres jointly, and the partnership
l e a s e s a b o u t 480 a c r e s .
The wife has worked part-time, off and on, through the
marriage. She h a s worked a s a l i b r a r i a n and a p a r t - t i m e mail
carrier.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t made e x t e n s i v e f i n d i n g s , b r e a k i n g down t h e
v a l u e of t i l l a b l e l a n d , t h e l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e p a r t i e s , improve-
ments to the land, an averaged v a l u e on t h e f a m i l y home, two
long lists of farm personal property and nonfarm personal
property, t h e amount and v a l u e of s t o r e d g r a i n , a n e s t i m a t e of
growing crops, total liabilities for the marital estate, and
f i n a l l y t o t a l assets f o r t h e marital e s t a t e . Most o f t h e s e f i n d -
i n g s are t a k e n from t h e v a l u e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e w i f e ' s p r o p o s e d
findings. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t a d o p t t h e w i f e ' s p r o p o s e d
findings in two instances: o f t h e f a m i l y home was n o t i n c l u d e d
i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e ; and t h e v a l u e of t h e 480 a c r e lease was
l i s t e d as z e r o .
The o r i g i n a l j u d g m e n t of the District C o u r t w a s amended to
correct some m a t h e m a t i c a l errors and a l t e r some v a l u e s at the
s u g g e s t i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s .
The h u s b a n d a r g u e s o n a p p e a l t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d
t o e x e r c i s e i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t by a c c e p t i n g most of t h e w i f e ' s
proposed f i n d i n g s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e husband claims t h e D i s t r i c t
Court erred in the following valuations: 1) t h e tillable
farmland v a l u a t i o n of $ 6 5 0 is n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e t e s t i m o n y o f
e i t h e r of the appraisers; 2) t h e District Court f a i l e d to con-
si d e r the wife 's inheritance and improperly considered the
husband s expected i n h e r i t a n c e ; 3 ) t h e District Court should have
placed the entire value of the Niles Place in pre-marital
property; 4 ) a n o l d wooden g r a i n b i n was improperly valued a t
$1,200; 5 ) t h e District Court i l l o g i c a l l y averaged t w o appraised
v a l u e s t o a r r i v e a t t h e v a l u e of t h e f a m i l y home; 6 ) the values
of the s h o p t o o l s and w h e a t s p r a y e r s a r e n o t supported by t h e
record; 7) the v a l u e s of t h e s i l v e r s e r v i c e and c o i n s e t were
improperly considered ; 8) t h e $ 2 3 ,0 0 0 w i t h d r a w n by t h e h u s b a n d
from a j o i n t s a v i n g s a c c o u n t was i m p r o p e r l y used t o o f f s e t t h e
value of pre-marital property; 9 ) t h e District Court erred in
e s t i m a t i n g t h e amount o f g r a i n s t o r e d i n g r a i n b i n s ; 1 0 ) some o f
t h e l a n d l o r d ' s g r a i n was i m p r o p e r l y i n c l u d e d as a m a r i t a l a s s e t ;
11) t h e District Court erroneously projected t h e v a l u e of the
1 9 8 1 g r a i n c r o p ; and 1 2 ) a c l e r i c a l e r r o r was n o t c h a n g e d i n t h a t
the $12,000 value placed on farm improvements should read
$12,100.
The w i f e c l a i m s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s are s u p p o r t e d
by t h e r e c o r d . We agree.
The s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w o f f i n d i n g s made by a D i s t r i c t C o u r t
is t h e same w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r e p a r e d t h e f i n d i n g s or
adopted a party's proposed findings. In re the Marriage of
LeProwse ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont . -. -- . , 6 4 6 P.2d 5 2 6 , 39 S t . R e p . 1053.
The e r r o r i n a d o p t i n g p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s is more a n e t h i c a l t h a n a
l e g a l breach. E r r o r o c c u r s when t h e p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s a r e r e l i e d
upon t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of f a c t s and
the exercise of independent judgment. In re the Marriage of
Hunter (1982), Mont . - - , 3 6 9 P.2d 489, 39 S t . R e p . 59.
Here, the record reflects conscientious concern and par-
t i c i p a t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
The test in reviewing the findings, then, is w h e t h e r the
District Court abused its discretion. That is, whether the
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 w i t h o u t 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 e d t h e b o u n d s o f r e a s o n i n v i e w of a l l
the circumstances. Cranmore v. Cranmore ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont . -- I
649 P.2d 4 4 1 , 39 S t . R e p . 1361; Converse v. Converse ( 1 9 8 2 ) ,
Mont . --- ---, 6 4 5 P.2d 4 1 3 , 39 S t . R e p . 887.
In adopting proposed values or in setting its own, the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t is f r e e i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o a d o p t t h e recommen-
d a t i o n o f a p a r t y or a layman o v e r t h a t o f a n e x p e r t . Dickerson
v . D i c k e r s o n ( 1980 ) , - Mont . - - , 6 1 4 P.2d 5 2 1 , 37 S t . R e p .
1286. Also, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t may a v e r a g e t h e v a l u e s g i v e n by
e x p e r t s t o a r r i v e a t an e q u i t a b l e s o l u t i o n . Converse, supra; In
R e t h e M a r r i a g e o f J e n s e n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -- Mont . , 6 3 1 P.2d 7 0 0 ,
38 St.Rep. 1109.
Here, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d o p t e d some f i n d i n g s s u p p o r t e d b y
t h e w i f e ' s v a l u a t i o n s , some f i n d i n g s t h a t were a v e r a g e s of v a l u e s
s e t by e x p e r t s , and some f i n d i n g s b a s e d o n t h e h u s b a n d ' s testi-
mony and that of his appraisers. The husband claims this is
i l l o g i c a l and i n c o n s i s t e n t , and t h e o n l y way t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
c o u l d h a v e a r r i v e d a t s u c h f i n d i n g s is by b l i n d l y f o l l o w i n g t h e
w i f e ' s proposed f i n d i n g s .
W e d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e husband s i m p l y because t h e f i n d i n g s are
supported by the e v i d e n c e and that is t h e determinative test.
Specifically, the record supports the D i s t r i c t Court's find-
ings that the tillable acreage is w o r t h $ 6 5 0 p e r acre. Two
l o c a l l a n d o w n e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y knew of r e c e n t s a l e s w h e r e
s i m i l a r l a n d was s o l d f o r o v e r $ 7 0 0 p e r a c r e . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d
t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d t h e l a n d was w o r t h $ 7 0 0 p e r a c r e . While t h e
t w o a p p r a i s e r s valued the l a n d a t $600 and $625 p e r a c r e , the
District C o u r t was w i t h i n its d i s c r e t i o n not to accept these
values. Dickerson, supra. Moreover, one a p p r a i s e r acknowledged
t h a t t h e r a n g e i n v a l u e w a s from $ 6 2 1 t o $743 p e r acre. The $ 6 5 0
v a l u e is t h e r e f o r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d .
The husband claims n e x t t h a t the District Court failed to
consider the wife's inheritance, and also, then improperly
i n c l u d e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s e x p e c t a t i o n of a n i n h e r i t a n c e . The r e c o r d
s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e wife s p e n t a l l $20,000 o f her
i n h e r i t a n c e r e c e i v e d i n 1975. She b o u g h t a car f o r h e r d a u g h t e r ,
a car f o r h e r s e l f , r e c a r p e t e d t h e f a m i l y home, and b u i l t a f e n c e .
Under s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, t h e D i s t r i c t Court must c o n s i d e r
f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of assets. The h u s b a n d ' s e x p e c t a t i o n of a
sizeable inheritance is t h e r e f o r e a valid consideration i n the
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 marital p r o p e r t y .
The h u s b a n d claims a l l of t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e of a p a r c e l of
l a n d , t h e N i l e s P l a c e , s h o u l d be p r e - m a r i t a l property. While t h e
husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e t h o u g h t h i s f a t h e r had p u r c h a s e d the
land prior to his marriage; the deed for the land was not
recorded until after the parties were married. The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t t h e r e f o r e r e a s o n a b l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t o n l y t h e down-payment
on the land was pre-marital property.
The w i f e ' s appraiser set a $1,200 v a l u e on a n o l d wooden
grain bin. This value is therefore supported by record,
r e g a r d l e s s of whether the husband disagrees with this figure.
Likewise, t h e w i f e ' s a p p r a i s e r set the values f o r the s i l v e r set
and t h e c o i n c o l l e c t i o n .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o a c t e d w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n e s t i -
mating t h e amount o f g r a i n i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . These esti-
mates seem t o be b a s e d , in part, o n t h o s e made b y t h e h u s b a n d
himself. Because the husband I s testimony was con£ u s i n g and
c o n t r a d i c t o r y as t o w h e t h e r t h e l a n d l o r d owned p a r t of t h e g r a i n
in one bin, the District Court could reasonably conclude the
g r a i n was p r o p e r l y w i t h i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e .
The r e c o r d also supports the District C o u r t ' s finding t h a t
the money the husband withdrew from a savings account owned
j o i n t l y w i t h t h e w i f e , was m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . The money was i n
the joint a c c o u n t and n o t i n t h e s e p a r a t e farm a c c o u n t . Also,
t h e money was w i t h d r a w n i m m e d i a t e l y a £ t e r t h e w i f e p e t i t i o n e d f o r
d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e m a r r i a g e .
The p r o j e c t e d v a l u e o f t h e 1 9 8 1 g r o w i n g c r o p is a l s o b a s e d o n
sufficient evidence. The District Court had i n evidence the
f a r m ' s income t a x r e t u r n s f o r t h e p a s t f o u r y e a r s , t h e e s t i m a t e d
e x p e n s e s , t h e e s t i m a t e d a c r e a g e p l a n t e d , and t h e e s t i m a t e d v a l u e
of the crops.
Except f o r the admitted c l e r i c a l e r r o r i n t h e v a l u a t i o n of
t h e f a r m i m p r o v e m e n t s , t h e v a l u e s u s e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t are
s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . The $ 1 0 0 e r r o r i n t h e f a r m improve-
m e n t s v a l u a t i o n is n o t of e n o u g h s i g n i f i c a n c e to w a r r a n t amending
t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n decree.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgm
,i-"
We c o n c u r :