Case Title: FINLAYSON v FINLAYSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-08-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12162 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 EVA MAE FINLAYSON, - - - - - - P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - DUNCAN FINLAY SON, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Goldman, McChesney and Datsopoulos, Missoula, Montana. H . L. McChesney argued, Missoula, Montana. For Respondents: Kenneth R. Wilson argued, Miles City, Montana. submitted: June 12, 1972 Decided : AUG 1 1 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This appeal i s from a f i n a l judgment entered on June 30, 1971, i n a divorce action t r i e d t o the court without a jury i n the d i s t r i c t court of the sixteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Custer. I n the d i s t r i c t court, both p a r t i e s were granted a d i - vorce with r e a l and personal property divided equally. Neither party has appealed the granting of the divorce, however, Eva Mae Finlayson, p l a i n t i f f , appeals from t h a t portion of the judgment which divided the property equally. She contends t h a t c e r t a i n specified property, including the family residence, c e r t i f i c a t e s of deposit, and a 1968 Pontiac automobile, a r e her sole and sep- a r a t e property. Eva and Duncan Finlayson were married on October 26, 1956. Duncan i n i t i a l l y contributed approximately $5,693.84 t o the marriage; Eva contributed a residence located i n Miles City, Montana, obtained from a p r i o r marriage and valued a t approximately $15,000 t o $18,000 with an unpaid mortgage of $5,289.05. During the marriage Eva worked regularly a s a waitress and Duncan worked regularly a s a janitor. Both p a r t i e s contributed t h e i r earnings t o a j o i n t checking account. I n 1959, the home i n Miles City was placed i n j o i n t tenancy by Eva t o avoid probate and although she recorded the instrument, Duncan was not aware of the j o i n t tenancy u n t i l 1969. During the course of the marriage Eva regularly purchased c e r t i f i c a t e s of deposit with t i p s she received a s a waitress. She a l s o invested approximately $1,000 she received from her mother's e s t a t e i n c e r t i f i c a t e s of deposit. Both Eva and Duncan were shown a s j o i n t owners of the c e r t i f i c a t e s of deposit u n t i l May 1970, the time of the f i l i n g of t h i s action, when Eva consolidated the c e r t i f i c a t e s i n t o one c e r t i f i c a t e i n her name and her s i s t e r ' s name, Leta L. Vick. The 1968 Pontiac automobile was obtained by Eva i n her name by using an automobile also i n her name as a down payment. The payments on the Pontiac and the trade-in automobile were made from the joint checking account with the f i n a l payment of $1,300 on the Pontiac being made from the joint savings account. Since Duncan did not drive and had never owned an automobile, he consented that the automobile be i n W a g s separate name and did not consider the automobile as one-half h i s u n t i l cornrnence- ment of the divorce action. Although other property was l i s t e d i n the t r i a l court's findings which divided the property, Eva has not questioned that division. There are two divergent philosophies of ownership urged by the parties. Appellant, Eva, who was given considerable latitude by Duncan i n directing marital financial matters, asserts that her ownership i s based on the specific contributions which she made t o the acquisition of the individual classes of property. Respondent, Duncan, argues that the property acquired during the marriage, although held i n various states of ownership by the parties, was the result of the t o t a l contribution of both parties. Recent decisions of t h i s Court support the basic proposition that the d i s t r i c t court may allocate property acquired during a and marriage on an equitable basis according t o contributions,/unless a review of a l l the evidence on appeal reveals that there has been an inequitable distribution t o a substantial degree, the decision of the d i s t r i c t court w i l l not be disturbed. Bloom v. Bloom, 150 Mont. 511, 515, 437 P.2d 1 ; Hodgson v. Hodgson, 156 Mont. 469, 482 P.2d 140; Libra v. Libra, 157 Mont. 252, 484 P.2d 748. I n Bloom the Court said: "'Therefore, the court did not e r r i n granting the divorce and dividing and adjusting the liti- gants' rights i n property accumulated by the joint efforts of the parties. The propkrty ac- quired jointly during the marriage may be divided regardless of whether the t i t l e thereto i s i n either or both of the parties. 27B C.J.S. D i - vorce, 1 295 (5), p. 304 9 et.seq. "' (Emphasis added). When viewing the entire record of contributions to this marriage by both parties, w e find the properties were paid for or acquired out of jointly accumulated funds and represent a comrning- ling of joint resources. Other than the earnings of the parties and the rents from the upstairs apartment i n the house i n Miles City, the only financial contribution t o the marriage came from an inheritance i n the approximate sum of $4,000 from Eva's mother. Some of the inheritance was used by Eva during the course of probate of her mother's estate to purchase from her two sisters their interest i n the deceased mother's home i n Billings. Duncan makes no claim against this home which, by an undisclosed arrangement, i s held i n the name of Eva's friend, L. G. Pence. Apart from the foregoing, joint funds were used to pay off the mortgage on the house i n Miles City and t o add improvements, including the addition of a garage i n the f a l l of 1957 a t a cost of $2,595.78. It appears that Eva and Duncan paid their living and miscellaneous expenses from their salaries and Eva purchased the certificates of deposit from tips. The certificates were held i n the joint names of Eva and Duncan u n t i l she transferred them into a consolidated certificate of deposit i n the joint names of Eva and her s i s t e r , prior to filing for divorce. In examining the joint income tax returns of the parties for the years 1959 to 1969, it appears that Duncan contributed approximately $1,000 per year more salary to the joint effort than did Eva. Over the period of years involved, this would equal the amount from tips that Eva placed i n certificates of deposit which totaled $12,088.68. I4hen \ i r e consider this marriage of fifteen years duration, che economic gains demonstrated are the result of as equal a con- tribution by the parties as could be achieved in any marriage. Bound by the rule above recited, this Court finds no evi- dence of inequity in the distribution, much less to a substantial tegree. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Associate Justice / /chief Justice ("J--zd&+&&-&- ----- Associate J u dices