Title: AKSAMIT v AKSAMIT

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12342 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T OF THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1973 JO ANNE AKSAMIT, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, ALLEN V. AKSAMIT, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Ronald D. McPhillips, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Harris, Jackson and Utick, Helena, Montana. Laverne Harris and Andrew Utick argued, Helena, Montana. For Respondent : Lyman H. Bennett, Jr. and Lyman H. Bennett, 1 1 1 argued, Bozeman, Montana. Submitted: A p r i l 27, 1973 Decided : J U M ' 8 19?3 : JUN - 8 1973 Honorable Robert Boyd, District Judge, s i t t i n g in place of M r . Justice Gene B. Daly, delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a decree of the d i s t r i c t court of the eighteenth judicial d i s t r i c t , county of Gallatin, s i t t i n g without a jury, granting a decree of divorce, determining custody of a minor child and dividing jointly held property between the parties. Thereafter the defen- dant filed his motion for new t r i a l i n accordance w i t h Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P., after service of notice of entry o f judgment. This motion was denied by failure of the t r i a l court to rule upon i t w i t h i n the time specified i n Rule 59(d), M.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff, Jo Anne Aksamit, and defendant, Allen V . Aksamit, Were married a t Helena, Montana,on September 23, 1960, i t being the second marriage for both. For convenience sake the parties will be hereafter re- ferred t o as "Jo Anne" and "Allen". A t the time of the marriage Jo Anne and Allen were both residing in Helena where Allen operated a welding shop. A t that time Jo Anne was supporting her two minor daughters by a previous marriage. Thereafter i n 1962 A 1 len and Jo Anne moved t o Bozeman, Montana, where they purchased a t r a i l e r court for the s u m of $10,000, A t the time of the purchase the t r a i l e r court consisted of approximately two and a ha1 f acres and seven t r a i l e r spaces and was subsequently expanded to five acres and thirty-four t r a i l e r spaces capable of earning a monthly income of $1,200. The t r a i l e r court and the additions thereto were acquired by cash contributions of both parties, i t appearing that Jo Anne had contributed approximately $36,000 in the t r a i l e r court from moneys coming to her as a result of her f i r s t husband5 death and that she subsequently contributed some $13,000 coming from the sale of her home i n Helena, Montana, and that she d i d likewise con- tribute another $5,500 from the sale of other assets coming t o her by reason of her f i r s t husband's death, making a total of cash contributions of approximately $54,500. Defendant contributed approximately $5,000 from the sale of his welding shop in Helena and another $3,800 from the sale of certain tools. During the course of the marriage 30 Anne and Allen jointly worked and developed the t r a i l e r park. 30 Anne's children by her prior marriage had Social Security income and the money received went for family 1 iving expenses. The t r i a l court found that a t the time of the divorce the t r a i l e r court had a market value of $90,000 to $100,000. In addition the parties acquired jointly the following described personal property: (1) 20' X 52' double-wide mobile home, (2) 8 ' X 35' Safeway mobile home, (3) a 1965 Oldsmobile, (4) a 1966 Ford Bronco, (5) three Honda motorcycles, (6) a 1965 GMC half-ton pickup w i t h camper, (7) a cabin cruiser, (8) a Trail Breaker motorcycle. All of these items were paid for with the exception of the t r a i l e r court which had an outstanding balance due on i t s mortgage of $14,110.42. One child, a son, Lonnie Aksamit, was born as issue of this marriage on November 12, 1963, and he continues to reside w i t h Jo Anne. In its decree the court awarded the following property to Jo Anne: (1) Aljo Trailer Park, (2) 1965 Oldsmobi le, (3) 1966 Ford Bronco, (4) 20' X 52' double-wide mobile home, (5) 8 ' X 35' Safeway mobile home, plus any and a1 1 other personal property not specifically mentioned. Allen received the following property: (1) Cabin cruiser, (2) one Honda, (3) one Trail Breaker, (4) 1965 GMC pickup and camper, (5) Artic Cats, and a l l tools and personal property located a t the Aljo Trailer Court. In addition Jo Anne was made responsible for a l l indebtedness of the parties incurred on or before April 30, 1971, including the balance of the mortgage on the A 1 jo Trailer Court. The court further decreed that A 1 len, by quitclaiming his interest i n the A 1 jo Trailer Court was to be re1 ieved of any and a11 obligations for care, maintenance and support of Lonnie Aksamit, the minor child, which support was deemed to require the s u m of $12,000. Two questions are presented upon appeal. The f i r s t issue present- ed is whether or not the motion on behalf of Allen for the appointment of an appraiser should have been granted;and secondly, whether the t r i a l court abused its discretion i n dividing the parties jointly-held property. From the transcript i t i s apparent that a l l of the testimony con- cerning values was given directly by both Allen and Jo Anne. This related directly to the cash contributions of each of the parties to the marriage and particularly the testimony of Allen w i t h respect to the value of the t r a i l e r s and of the t r a i l e r court. In this respect i t was established that Allen had, as an owner, knowledge more than that possessed generally by individuals of the value of trailers and t r a i l e r courts, Allen t e s t i - fied that i n his opinion the t r a i l e r court had a value of $100,000 and that he had received a bona fide offer through a realtor for the purchase of the property some two or three years prior to the time of the divorce of $87,000, The d i s t r i c t court i n i t s findings placed the value of the t r a i l e r court a t between $90,000 and $100,000, a value related directly to the testimony of Allen. I t therefore does not appear to this Court that the d i s t r i c t court erred i n accepting the testimony of A 1 len with reference to the value of the t r a i l e r court and that Allen was not prejudiced by the refusal of the dis- t r i c t court t o appoint an appraiser. The defendant concedes that in a divorce action the d i s t r i c t court has equitable powers to adjust property interest of the parties. Libra v . Libra, 157 Mont. 252, 484 P.2d 748 (1971 ) . The defendant 1 i kewise recognizes that i n adjusting property interests, the court will consider the contri bu- tions made by the parties i n acquiring the property i n question. Finlayson v . Finlayson, - Mont. , 500 P.2d 225, 29 St .Rep. 649 (1972). Defendant contends that the d i s t r i c t court failed t o follow these guide lines in arriving a t a division of the property owned by the parties a t the time of the t r i a l . With this contention w e do not agree. A reading of the transcript and the findings of fact and conclusions of law adopted by the d i s t r i c t court indicate that the presiding judge therein took into consideration each of the assets claimed by the parties to the marriage,as well as the individual contribution of each of the parties thereto. I t is apparent that the dis- t r i c t court took into consideration not only the joint efforts of the parties i n enhancing, enlarging and maintaining the t r a i l e r court properties b u t the financial contribution of the parties as well. A s stated in Cook v . Cook, 159 Mont. 98, 495 P. 2d 591 , 29 St. Rep. 226 (1 972), " * * * Each case must be looked a t by the t r i a l court individually with an eye to i t s unique circumstances. * * *" W e find that i n this case the d i s t r i c t court has followed that mandate and the judgment i n place o f M r . Justice Gene B. Daly. / '/chief Justice i . t '-, Justice John C . Harrison.