Case Title: MARRIAGE OF STRATFORD

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-07-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
81-47 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 I N R E T H E F4ARRIAGE O F MARY IAXON STRATFORD, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, JOHN HENRY STRATFORD, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, I n and f o r t h e County o f Yellowstone, The IIonorable Diane G. Barz, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Berger, S i n c l a i r & Nelson, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Davidson, Veeder, Raugh, Broeder & Poppler, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : A p r i l 15, 1981 Decided: J u l y 1 0 , 1981 F i l e d : WL 1 o 1981 M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e opinion of t h e Court. Mary S t r a t f o r d 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 her marriage t o John S t r a t f o r d on April 6, 1979, i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r the County of Yellowstone. A n e v i d e n t i a r y hearing w a s held on November 10, 1980. On December 30, 1980, t h e d i s t r i c t judge issued her f i n a l decree. John S t r a t f o r d appeals from t h a t decree. John and Mary S t r a t f o r d were married i n B i l l i n g s i n 1947. A t t h e time of t h e marriage, Mary was a school teacher. She continued t o teach u n t i l 1951, when t h e f i r s t of t h e couple's t h r e e sons was born and she assumed t h e f u l l t i m e r o l e of homemaker. John farmed from spring t o f a l l on a 320-acre p a r c e l located 20 miles south of B i l l i n g s . John had made t h e downpayment on the farm i n 1945, and t h e balance was paid during the marriage. John obtained employment i n B i l l i n g s , where t h e family resided, during t h e winters. A l l t h r e e homes which t h e family owned during t h e marriage were purchased with t h e j o i n t monies of John and Mary. The farm grew i n s i z e during t h e marriage and c u r r e n t l y comprises 1,848 a c r e s , 1,138 of which a r e c u l t i v a t e d . The acreage was accumulated through t h e e f f o r t s of both John and Mary. I n 1975, S t r a t f o r d Farms, Incorporated, was formed a s p a r t of an e s t a t e plan. Eighty a c r e s of t h e o r i g i n a l 320 w e r e i n a d v e r t e n t l y omitted from t h e corporation. John i s p r e s i - d e n t of t h e corporation and farm manager. H e r e c e i v e s a s a l a r y of $900 a month and a home on t h e farm a s payment f o r h i s services. Mary i s s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r of t h e corpor- a t i o n and i s paid $1,000 per month f o r her bookkeeping f o r t h e corporation. She a l s o works part-time a t Sears ~ o e b u c k . The shares i n t h e corporation a r e c u r r e n t l y d i s t r i b u t e d a s follows: John, 13,762; Mary, 13,761; each of t h e t h r e e sons, 6,830. One of t h e sons r e s i d e s on t h e farm and works with h i s f a t h e r . The p a r t i e s acquired o t h e r a s s e t s during t h e marriage. The n e t value of a l l a s s e t s w a s s t i p u l a t e d t o a t t h e t i m e of d i s s o l u t i o n . The major asset i s I n d u s t r i a l Land and Realty, a j o i n t venture between John S t r a t f o r d and h i s brother. Mary's mother contributed funds which aided John i n obtaining h i s i n t e r e s t i n I n d u s t r i a l Land. Mary r e c e i v e s one half of John's monthly d i s t r i b u t i o n from t h e venture, o r $750. Mary received approximately $28,500 during t h e marriage by g i f t and devise from her mother. She has invested i n stocks. John i s a p a r t n e r i n a four-person p a r t n e r s h i p , C.A.J.Y. The p a r t i e s a l s o have bank accounts, IRA accounts and personal property . The d i s t r i c t judge made a property d i s p o s i t i o n i n l i e u of maintenance. Each p a r t y received one half of a l l d i s t r i b u - t i o n s of earnings from I n d u s t r i a l Land and Realty. I n t h e event the husband l i q u i d a t e s h i s i n t e r e s t , t h e wife i s t o r e c e i v e one half of h i s n e t proceeds. The wife received t h e family home i n B i l l i n g s , a s w e l l a s t h e household f u r n i s h i n g s and appliances. The husband was awarded t h e 80-acre t r a c t which was n o t incorporated i n t o S t r a t f o r d Farms and the f u r n i s h i n g s and appliances located a t t h e farmhouse. The wife kept t h e i n h e r i t a n c e from her mother. The p a r t i e s kept t h e i r own bank accounts, IRA accounts, l i f e insurance p o l i c i e s and vehicles. The husband r e t a i n e d h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e C.A.J.Y. partnership. The p a r t i e s r e t a i n e d t h e i r previously e s t a b l i s h e d shares i n S t r a t f o r d Farms. The p a r t i e s w e r e made responsible f o r t h e i r own l i a b i l i t i e s , a s well a s f o r t h e i r own c o s t s and f e e s i n the d i s s o l u t i o n a c t i o n . Appellant r a i s e s numerous i s s u e s concerning whether t h e evidence supports t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t judge and whether t h e judge ignored c e r t a i n evidence i n applying t h e f a c t o r s t o be considered i n a r r i v i n g a t an e q u i t a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n of property under s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. W e have reviewed t h e evidence and examined t h e findings and conclusions of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Findings of f a c t and conclusions of law provide a foundation f o r t h e c o u r t ' s judgment. Marriage of Barron (1978), 177 Mont. 161, 580 P.2d 936. This foundation need n o t c o n s i s t of a multitude of e v i d e n t i a r y f a c t s , b u t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t must set f o r t h a recordation of t h e e s s e n t i a l and determining f a c t s upon which t h e c o u r t r e s t e d i t s conclusions of law and without which t h e judgment would lack support. Jones v. Jones (1980), - Mont. , 620 P.2d 850, 37 St.Rep. 1973. A d i s t r i c t c o u r t has far-reaching d i s c r e t i o n i n resolving property d i v i s i o n s and its judgment w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d unless a c l e a r abuse of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i s shown. The c r i t e r i a f o r reviewing t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n is: Did t h e c o u r t i n the e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n a c t a r b i t r a r i l y without employment of conscientious judgment, o r exceed t h e bounds of reason i n view of a l l the circumstances. Zell v. Z e l l (1977), 174 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 33. The D i s t r i c t Court made f i n d i n g s on those elements of s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, which a r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s case, and t h e findings a r e supported by the evidence. W e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . Appellant a l s o r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e ownership of the stock i n S t r a t f o r d Farms, Incorporated. These i s s u e s can be disposed of by confronting t h e c e n t r a l question: Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err by f a i l i n g t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e w i f e ' s stock i n t h e farm corporation t o t h e husband? The d i s t r i c t judge considered the a l t e r n a t i v e d i s p o s i t i o n s of S t r a t f o r d Farms, Incorporated, t h a t w e r e a v a i l a b l e t o her. She heard t h e testimony of two of t h e t h r e e sons who own stock i n the corporation, both of whom s a i d t h a t they would be a b l e t o v o t e t h e i r stock without regard t o personal d i s p u t e s between t h e i r parents. The judge found t h a t t h e r e would be s e r i o u s t a x consequences i f she w e r e t o order l i q u i d a t i o n of t h e farm corporation. This finding w a s supported by the testimony of the accountant who appeared a t t h e hearing. The judge concluded it t o be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e e s t a t e t h a t the ownership of S t r a t f o r d Farms n o t be t r a n s f e r r e d o r sold. There was ample evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t Court order continuing the e s t a b l i s h e d ownership and operation of t h e farm corporation. The t a x consequences of a t r a n s f e r o r s a l e w e r e given due considera- t i o n . W e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n by n o t d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e w i f e ' s corporate stock t o t h e husband. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t asserts t h a t it was e r r o r f o r t h e d i s t r i c t judge t o s u s t a i n o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e cross-examination of the wife. Appellant was seeking t o minimize t h e value of h i s w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the marriage. To t h i s end, t h e wife was questioned a s t o whether t h e l i v i n g q u a r t e r s on t h e farm could have been upgraded t o equal those i n town, whether she characterized h e r s e l f a s a " c i t y g i r l " , and whether she s p e n t more time playing bridge than keeping t h e corporate books. The information which counsel f o r a p p e l l a n t was attempting t o s o l i c i t was i r r e l e v a n t . The d i s t r i c t judge d i d n o t e r r i n s u s t a i n i n g o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e s e i n q u i r i e s . W e have found t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court committed no We concur: ph--Q4$f@~d& Chief Justice