Case Title: DOWNS v DOWNS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13091 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A G L A D Y S THEW D O W N S , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, ROBERT FRED D O W N S , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Lucas, Jardine & Monaghan, Miles City, Montana James P. Lucas argued, Miles. City, Montana Kronmiller and Seykora, Hardin, Montana James E. Seykola argued, Hardin, Montana For Respondent: Cate, Lynaugh, Fitzgerald and Huss, B i l l i n g s , Montana Jerome J. Cate argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: A p r i l 22, 1976 Decided : JtIN 2 8 1976 J i rrJ 2 i ; 5 C 3 7 t ; Filed : M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This appeal a r i s e s out of a property settlement i n a divorce action i n the d i s t r i c t court, Big Horn County. The only issue before t h i s Court i s whether the trial court i n i t s division of property abused i t s discretion, o r made an inequitable division of the a s s e t s , most of which were acquired during the 19 years of the p a r t i e s ' marriage. P l a i n t i f f and defendant were married i n 1956. Defendant was 34 years of age a t the time of the marriage and had been previously married and divorced. P l a i n t i f f was 24 years of age a t the time of the marriage. Three children were born t o the p a r t i e s , one died as a r e s u l t of a f i r e t h a t destroyed the family ranch home i n 1971. The other two children a r e Debbie Diane, age 16 and a son Ricky Ray, age 12. P l a i n t i f f f i l e d f o r divorce, custody of the children, alimony, and a division of property. Defendant f i l e d a cross complaint. Custody of daughter Debbie Diarte was awarded t o p l a i n t i f f , together with $200 per month child support, plus an award t o p l a i n t i f f of 32 acres of land (including the family home valued between $30,000 and $70,000), household contents, auto, plus $250,000, payable i n installments over a period of 12 years. Defendant was awarded custody of son Ricky Ray and a l l the re- maining property, subject t o t h e mortgages and l i a b i l i t i e s . A t the time of divorce p l a i n t i f f was 42 years of age. Her education consisted of one year of high school. She was working as a waitress a t the time she married defendant. During the e n t i r e marriage she performed the many tasks necessary t o r a i s e her family and help run a ranch operation. Her contributions t o the marriage partnership were many and they undoubtedly helped the couple i n acquiring considerable wealth. P l a i n t i f f contends a t the time of the marriage the value of defendant's a s s e t s was approximately $45,000 and through j o i n t e f f o r t s t h e i r present n e t wurth i s $2,800,000. Defendant was 52 years of age a t the time of the divorce. H e has successfully engaged i n a variety of businesses, including a livestock operation, farm and ranching, a truck l i n e from S e a t t l e t o Alaska, an a e r i a l spray service, o i l well production, and others. Throughout the marriage defendant kept t i t l e t o h i s property i n h i s own name except f o r contracts for deed conveying r e a l property sold by defendant and upon which h i s wife's name appeared as s e l l e r . Defendant contends the reasonable value of h i s a s s e t s a t the time of the marriage was i n excess of $400,000 and t h a t the time of the divorce h i s a s s e t s were considerably l e s s than the amount alleged by p l a i n t i f f . O n appeal, the problem confronting t h i s Court centers around rhe question of defendant's assets a t the time of h i s marriage and a t the time of the divorce. The t r a n s c r i p t portrays him as a most evasive witness. A t the very f i r s t page of the t r a n s c r i p t , counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f moved t o postpone the t r i a l on the grounds t h a t interrogatories due from defendant had not been delivered on time and when they were received they were evasive, incomplete and prevented an adequate discovery process. I n h i s motion, counsel a l s o informed the t r i a l court the a f f i d a v i t of an appointed appraiser of the property showed t h a t without being f u l l y informed of a l l the property and having f i v e o r s i x days t o con- duct the appraisal, he could not bring back any values. This morion t o postpone was denied by the court and it i s obvious t h e t r i a l judge, as well as p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel, lacked a f u l l d i s - closure of the p a r t i e s ' assets a t the time of t r i a l . This f a i l u r e t o f u l l y put before the t r i a l court proper valuation of a l l the property caused the trial court t o make an inequitable d i s t r i b u t i o n of the property insofar as p l a i n t i f f ' s needs a r e concerned. Too, the t r i a l court was faced i n making i t s decision with the problem of interpreting and evaluating the c r e d i b i l i t y of defendant as a witness. Throughout the testimony of defendant, he was evasive and gave unfair and incorrect answers, a l l of which should have raised the question of c r e d i b i l i t y a s a witness. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s testimony was of l i t t l e assistance t o the t r i a l judge i n making a f a i r division of the property. This Court i n a number of recent opinions concerning the t r i a l c o u r t ' s power t o divide property accumulated during the marriage, has held the division should be on an equitable basis regardless of who had t i t l e t o the property. Aksamit v. Aksamit, 162 Mont. 266, 511 P.2d 10; Libra v. Libra, 157 Mont. 252, 484 P.2d 748; Bloom v. Bloom, 150 Mont. 511, 437 P.2d 1. Further, t h a t the court i n making property divisions may consider property owned a t the commencement of the marriage, financial contributions, the e f f o r t s of the p a r t i e s , including the performance of duties and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s requested of a wife. Cook v. Cook, 159 Mont. 98, 495 P.2d 591; Hunnewell v. Hunnewell, 160 Mont. 125, 500 P.2d 1198; Francke v. Francke, 161 Mont. 98, 504 P.2d 990. Admitted i n t o evidence during the t r i a l was a financial statement submitted by defendant t o the Big Horn County S t a t e Bank i n April 1974. I n t h i s record, t h a t statement is the only indication of the n e t worth of defendant. Therein he l i s t s h i s t o t a l assets a t $3,371,007; h i s l i a b i l i t i e s a t $489,000; and h i s net worth a t $2,882.007. P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t the award t o her compared t o the net assets of defendant when computed into percentages would mean an award of only 9.56%. I f one were not t o discount the $175,000 award t o a value of $100,612.21, p l a i n t i f f would receive approximately 12.2% of the property accumulated during the marriage. P l a i n t i f f argues i n Hodgson v. Hodgson, 156 Mont. 469, 482 P.2d 140, the wife received 70% of the accumulated a s s e t s , i n - Cook she received 69% and t h a t i n Johnson v. Johnson, 137 Mont. 11, 349 P.2d 310, the Court spoke of an equal division of t h a t accumu- lated under the j o i n t e f f o r t s of the p a r t i e s a s not unreasonable. While i n a l l three of the c i t e d cases we were considering much smaller accumulations than i n the i n s t a n t case, an argument i s made t h a t under the ruling of the t r i a l court a t the end of a twelve year period, a t an age and health period when she might need it most, the payments w i l l cease. I n view of the u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the record as t o the true net worth of defendant a t the time of the marriage and a t the time of the divorce, the judgment i s s e t aside. W e remand t h i s cause t o the d i s t r i c t court with directions to hold a new t r i a l . We concur: Justices \ B Hon. R.D. McPhillips, District Judge, sitting for Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison.