Case Title: HOUSER v HOUSER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13205 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T OF THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1977 BARBARA J. HOUSER, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- JAMES A. HOUSER, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Joseph E. Mudd argued, Bridger, Montana For Respondent : James Reno argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: January 2 6 , 1977 Decided : .luN 2 9 1977 ~iled:,!bN L J Y j l M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal by the husband from a judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County, awarding the marital home t o the wife i n an annulment action and declaring the husband's name was placed on the deed only a s security f o r the down payment loan made on the house. The sole issue raised by the husband's appeal is h i s assertion the d i s t r i c t court had no r i g h t t o award t o the wife property acquired i n t h e i r j o i n t names before the marriage. This issue was not raised i n the t r i a l court. Moreover, defendant husband i n h i s answer and counterclaim t o the wife's request t h a t the property be equitably divided, a l s o requested an equitable division of the property. The i n s t a n t annulment was the second marriage between Barbara J. Houser and James A. Houser. During the f i r s t marriage they had one child, Jennifer. After the divorce the p a r t i e s s t a r t e d dating again, and i n March 1973 they made a down payment on a home which Barbara was renting. T i t l e was placed i n both names a s j o i n t tenants. James Houser, through h i s f a t h e r , furnished the $4,000 down payment t o be repaid a t the r a t e of $100 per month which included a 6% i n t e r e s t charge. I n December 1973, Barbara and James remarried but the marriage lasted only a few months. I n 1974, Barbara Houser f i l e d an action f o r annulment and asked the court t o equitably divide the personal and r e a l property acquired by the parties. I n h i s answer and counterclaim James Houser a l s o requested the court t o make an equitable division of the property. H e made no attempt t o l i m i t the court t o considera- t i o n of property acquired a f t e r they were married. A t t r i a l , Barbara Houser contended the $4,000 down payment was a loan t o her and James Houser's name was on the deed only a s security f o r the loan. James disputed the loan a l l e g a t i o n and contended the p a r t i e s agreed t o j o i n t ownership of t h e property. A t t r i a l , he did not contend the t r i a l court had no r i g h t t o divide the property; he was merely asking f o r a d i f f e r e n t disposi- t i o n than t h a t awarded. The d i s t r i c t court found t i t l e t o the home (subject t o a mortgage f o r the balance of the purchase price) was i n Barbara Houser's name and James Houser's name was placed on the deed 1 I f o r security purposes only, and was meant t o secure the repay- ment of said loan [the down payment] ." By h i s pleadings and by h i s approach a t t r i a l , defendant James Houser c l e a r l y requested the d i s t r i c t court t o use i t s equitable powers t o make a disposition of the home. He cannot now complain the d i s t r i c t court had no r i g h t t o do so. Epletveit v. Solberg, 119 Mont. 45, 169 P.2d 722. The d i s t r i c t court was not compelled t o order the home sold and the proceeds divided equally between the p a r t i e s , a s defendant i n s i s t s . Rather, the court found t h a t defendant James Houser had no ownership r i g h t s i n the property, except a security i n t e r e s t f o r repayment of the $4,000. W e emphasize t h a t James Houser did not challenge the findings of the d i s t r i c t court. W e affirm the judgment. We Concur: 3