Case Title: MARRIAGE OF WENGELER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 85-028

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1986-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 85-28
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1986

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
FRANCIS W. WENGELER,

Petitioner and appellant,
and
ELAINE WENGELER,
Respondent and Respondent.

APPEAL PROM: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District,
In and for the County of Richland,
‘The Honorable Russel! McDonough, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Koch, Carter & Anciaux; Phillip N. Carter, Sidney,
Montana

For Respondent:

Peter 0. Maltese, Sidney, Montana

 

 

Submitted on Briefs: Aug. 15, 1985
Decided: January 21, 1986

Files: jaw 2.1 1986

  
 

Mr, Justice Pred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Francis W. Wengeler (husband) appeals from the judgment
of the Seventh Judicial District Court for Richland County
which awarded attorney fees to Blaine M. Wengeler (wife) and
included a mobile home in the marital estate. We affirm the
District court.

‘The issues are:

1. Did the District Court err in including the mobile
home in the marital estate?

2. Did the District Court improperly award attorney
fees to the wife?

Husband and wife were married in 1962. Two daughters

were born to the marriage, both of whom are now adults. In

 

1973, husband and wife purchased a Bonevilla mobile hom

 

which they originally parked in Nashua, Montana. In 1975,

where it

 

the mobile home was moved to Reynolds, North Dakot:

 

was parked on real property owned by the husband's fath
At that time the wheels and axles wore removed from the
mobile home and it was placed on a concrete foundation.
Husband argues that the placing of the mobile home on such a
foundation constituted a transfer of the mobile hone so that
it no longer could be classed as # part of the marital
tate. tn his verified petition for @issolution, husband
stated that the mobile hone had been acquired by husband and
wife and that {t should be sold and the equity should be
divided equally, By her answer, the wife admitted that the
mobile home had been acquired by the husband and wife during
their marriage. She suggested a different disposition than
that asked by the husband. On August 4, 1962, the district
judge signed the decree of dissolution, but reserved the

determination of all other matters.
Both the husband and wife testified, without
contradiction, to the following facts regarding the mobile
home: the mobile hone was purchased by the husband and wife;
it was placed upon lots in North Dakota owned by husband's
father; neither husband nor wife intended to transfer the
mobile home to the husband's father by such placement; the
father intended to transfer the lots to husband and wife upon
payment of a small sum of money; husband's father transferred
the lots on which the mobile home was aituated to minor
childven of husband and wife; neither husband nor wife
intended to transfer their interest in the mobile home to
their children; husband continued to pay the taxes on the
mobile home through 1982; the parties continued to pay the
lending institution on the obligation incurred at the time of
the purchase of the mobile home; and the hone has been used
by husband or wife, and was not occupied at the tine of the
divorce proceedings by the children who owned the lota.
I

Did the District Court exr in including the mobile home
in the marital estate?

In finding of fact VIII, the District court found that
the mobile hone was a part of the marital property. The
husband attacks that finding ané the conclusion based upon
the fining.

Husband contends that under the law of the state of
North Dakota, real property includes that which is affixed to
the land. A thing is affixed to the land when it is
permanently attached by nails, bolts or screws. In addition,
he argues that under North Dakota law when a person affixes
his property to the land of another without any agreement
permitting removal, the thing affixed belongs to the owner of

the land, He therefore argues that the mobile home became
 

the property of his father, and now is the property of the
children,
In finding of fact x, the District Court stated:

‘The Court finds that Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 of
Block 22 of Reynolds City ‘Second ‘Addition in
Reynolds, North Dakota upon which such mobile home
is situated is owned by the two daughters of the
parties hereto and that the parties have listed all
of the marital property and the said lots for the
price of Thirty-One Thousand Dollars ($31,000.00),
which was their appraised value. That upon the
sale of said lots, the daughters were to receive a
portion of the proceeds in payment of such lots and
the Court finds such portion of the proceeds was to
be Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) for each
daughter. ‘The Court finds that the total value of
such marital assets is in the sum of Twenty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).

We have reviewed the transcripts which contain substantial
evidence to support the finding that there was an agreenent
under which the two daughters were to receive $3,000.00 each.

Because of the presence of that agreement, there is no rei

 

on
to be concerned with the technical question of the ovnership
of the lots as distinguished from the ownership of the mobile
home itself. There is substantial evidence in the record to
support the finding by the court that the lote plus the
mobile home had a value of $31,000.00, and that $6,000.00 was
to be allocated to the daughters, leaving $25,000.00 as the
value of that portion of the marital estate.

We hold that the District Court was correct when it

includeé the mobile home as a part of the marital

 

tate.

 

u
Did the District Court improperly award attorney fees to
the wife?
The husband argues that the District Court improperly
ordered the husband to pay the wife's attorney fees. He

bases this arcument on cross-examination in which the wife

 

testified that her present husband would be willing to

 

P
her pay attorney fees. She also testified that she felt it
was her obligation to pay them, and she would pay them
without her present husband's help. In itself, that
testimony is not determinative of the issue.

In finding of fact XVI, the District Court concluded
that the wife did not have the means to pay attorney fees at
the time of the inception of the divorce action ané that she
still does not have the means to pay such attorney fees. The
record contains substantial evidence to support that finding.

We affirm the award of attorney fees by the District
court.

jaatie

We concur: