Title: MARRIAGE OF NUNNALLY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 80-457 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 I N R E T H E MARRIAGE O F EVA L. NUNNALLY, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vs- RAY L. NUNNALLY, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Lake, The Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge p r e s i d i n g , Counsel bf Record: For Appellant: I a n Christopherson, Missoula, Montana Donald J. Louden, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : C h r i s t i a n , McCurdy, Ingraham, Wold & Peterson, Polson, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : February 2 5 , 1981 Decided : APR 2 " I 198! F i l e d : &,FJ!? '2 += ?gm M r . Chief J u s t i c e H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The w i f e brought t h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g d i s s o l u t i o n of h e r m a r r i a g e , c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d of t h e p a r t i e s , c h i l d sup- p o r t and d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e marital assets. The matter w a s t r i e d on September 26, 1979, b e f o r e t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y . The f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and judgment of t h e District C o u r t were e n t e r e d on O c t o b e r 1, 1980, d i s s o l v i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , awarding c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d and c h i l d s u p p o r t to t h e w i f e and d i v i d i n g t h e p r o p e r t y . The husband c h a l l e n g e s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n and v a l u a t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y . The p a r t i e s were married i n K a l i s p e l l , Montana, i n September, 1959. One c h i l d was born as i s s u e of t h e m a r r i a g e , who a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l was 1 6 y e a r s of age. The p a r t i e s a l s o r a i s e d t h e minor c h i l d of t h e husband from a p r i o r m a r r i a g e . P r i o r to t h e m a r r i a g e t h e w i f e owned a house which was unencumbered, as w e l l as a feed s u p p l y b u s i n e s s , household f u r n i s h i n g s , a c a r , a t r u c k , and United Fund s h a r e s . The husband owned one c a r , a small bank account, and a V e t e r a n ' s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y which w a s h e a v i l y encumbered. The p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e repayment of t h e V.A. p o l i c y l o a n d u r i n g t h e i r m a r r i a g e . During t h e e a r l y y e a r s of t h e m a r r i a g e both p a r t i e s worked i n t h e feed s u p p l y b u s i n e s s u n t i l t h e b u s i n e s s was s o l d i n 1964. The husband worked a t s e v e r a l odd jobs, t h e n began a career as an e l e c t r i c i a n . A t t h e t i m e of t r i a l he was employed as a jour- neyman wireman foreman a t $12.80 a n hour. I n 1969 t h e wife began working f o r t h e S t a t e L i q u o r S t o r e i n P o l s o n , where s h e is c u r r e n t l y employed a s t h e s t o r e manager. When judgment was e n t e r e d , t h e wife w a s 6 1 y e a r s of age and t h e husband w a s 56 y e a r s of age. The house was e x t e n s i v e l y remodeled d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e of t h e p a r t i e s . I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e husband's promise to exca- v a t e a basement and remodel t h e house, t h e w i f e conveyed a j o i n t t e n a n c y i n t e r e s t i n t h e house t o t h e husband. The husband c o n t r i b u t e d l a b o r o v e r a p e r i o d of seven y e a r s b u t had n o t completed t h e work as of t h e d a t e of commencement of t h i s act i o n . The w i f e o b t a i n e d a l o a n and used t h e p r o c e e d s p l u s s a v i n g s of t h e p a r t i e s to have t h e work done by o t h e r s . The a p p r a i s a l v a l u e o f t h e remodeled home was found t o be $38,500 and t h e total cost o f remodeling was $26,757.20 e x c l u s i v e of t h e p a r t i e s ' own l a b o r . The D i s t r i c t Court awarded t h e house to t h e w i f e . The p a r t i e s owned o t h e r p r o p e r t y which t h e c o u r t d i v i d e d between them. The w i f e r e c e i v e d t h e 1959 Ford t r u c k , t h e 1970 P o n t i a c , a l l t h e f u r n i s h i n g s i n t h e house, t h e funds i n h e r checking a c c o u n t , a l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y ( t h e "Empire Builder1' ) , and s h a r e s of s t o c k i n t h e L i f e I n s u r a n c e Company of t h e Northwest. The husband r e c e i v e d t h e 1971 C h e v r o l e t van, t h e tools which r e l a t e t o h i s o c c u p a t i o n , t h e V.A. l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y , and c e r t a i n uncashed p a y r o l l checks earned by him. The remaining t o o l s owned by t h e p a r t i e s were to be d i v i d e d by them o n an e q u a l b a s i s , and i f t h e y were unable to do so a master would be a p p o i n t e d . C h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount of $150 p e r month was awarded to t h e w i f e . I n r e a c h i n g t h e c o n c l u s i o n s t h e District Court s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e ages, s k i l l s and e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l of t h e p a r t i e s . The p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n was i n l i e u of maintenance. The husband c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n t h e v a l u a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e marital assets and t h a t c e r t a i n f i n d i n g s were n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e husband a r g u e s t h a t t h e f a i l u r e of t h e District C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s and to a s s i g n c u r r e n t v a l u e s to t h e motor v e h i c l e s , tools and c o i n s owned by t h e p a r t i e s was r e v e r s i b l e error. The husband f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y and exceeded t h e bounds o f r e a s o n i n d i s t r i b u t i n g o v e r 80 p e r c e n t of t h e assets to t h e w i f e . T h i s Court h a s s t a t e d on numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t t h e District Court must make f i n d i n g s of f a c t from which t h e r e can be determined a n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s . See e.g. I n re Marriage o f Herron ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 608 P.2d 97, 37 St.Rep. 387; Downs v. Downs ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 592 P.2d 938, 36 St.Rep. 577; Vivian v. V i v i a n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont . , 583 P.2d 1072, 3 5 St.Rep. 1359. While t h e D i s t r i c t Court indeed f a i l e d i n t h i s case t o make a s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g of n e t worth, t h e f i n d i n g s as a whole are s u f f i c i e n t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t worth and to d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n w a s e q u i t a b l e . A l l of t h e major a s s e t s were a s s i g n e d v a l u e s by t h e c o u r t , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e mtor v e h i c l e s , t h e t o o l s , and t h e s i l v e r c o i n s . T h i s omission does n o t n e c e s s i t a t e a r e v e r s a l i n view of t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e s e assets. See Kuntz v. Kuntz ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 593 P.2d 41, 36 St.Rep. 662. The 1959 Ford t r u c k w a s a c q u i r e d by t h e wife w i t h r e s o u r c e s t r a c e a b l e t o p r o p e r t y s h e owned p r i o r to t h e m a r r i a g e . Due to its age t h e t r u c k o b v i o u s l y had nominal v a l u e . The 1970 P o n t i a c and 1971 C h e v r o l e t van were a p p a r e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t to have nominal and e q u a l v a l u e , and each p a r t y r e c e i v e d one car. A l l o f t h e t o o l s n e c e s s a r y t o t h e husband's b u s i n e s s were awarded to him, and t h e remainder of t h e t o o l s were to be d i v i d e d e q u a l l y by e i t h e r t h e p a r t i e s or a s p e c i a l master. Considering t h e l e n g t h y i t e m i z e d list of t o o l s a t t a c h e d to t h e f i n d i n g s , t h i s scheme was a more l o g i c a l and p r a c t i c a l s o l u t i o n t h a n a t t e m p t i n g to p l a c e a v a l u e on each t o o l . The c o i n s were s o l d p r i o r t o t r i a l because t h e w i f e needed t h e money f o r household expenses, and t h e r e f o r e were n o t a m a r i t a l asset a t t h e t i m e of judgment. See Fred- e r i c k s e n v. F r e d e r i c k s e n ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 605 P.2d 1135, 37 St.Rep. 191. The f i n d i n g s of f a c t as a whole are s u f f i c i e n t l y complete t o e n a b l e t h i s Court to review t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n . The house, a p p r a i s e d a t $38,500 and encumbered by a $13,000 l o a n executed s o l e l y by t h e w i f e , had a n e t v a l u e of $25,500. The household f u r n i s h i n g s , i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s and s t o c k had a t o t a l v a l u e of $11,588. These f i g u r e s a r e e a s i l y computed from t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t . The husband r e c e i v e d p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y worth $6,155, w h i l e t h e w i f e r e c e i v e d p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y worth $5,432 and real pro- p e r t y w i t h an e q u i t y of $25,500. Much of t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l concerned t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of each p a r t y t o t h e remodeling of t h e house. It a p p e a r s t h a t a p p e l l a n t is c l a i m i n g t h a t he made an e q u a l c o n t r i - b u t i o n t o t h e improvement of t h e house and t o t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of t h e o t h e r a s s e t s and t h a t t h e r e f o r e he deserved one-half of t h e marital estate. A 50/50 d i s t r i b u t i o n is n o t r e q u i r e d where t h e r e s u l t would be i n e q u i t a b l e . I n re Marriage of Herron ( 1980 1 Mon t . , 608 P.2d 97, 37 St.Rep. 387. The criteria t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e a s s e t s are s e t f o r t h i n sec- t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. The f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w i n t h i s case r e f l e c t a c a r e f u l and c o n s c i e n t i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f a c t o r s . The c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t t h e husband had a g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y t o a c q u i r e a r e s i d e n c e i n t h e f u t u r e . The c o u r t concluded t h a t because of t h e w i f e ' s age and l a c k of s k i l l s , because c u s t o d y was awarded t o t h e w i f e , and because t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n was i n l i e u of maintenance, t h e house and its f u r n i s h i n g s should be awarded t o h e r . Both p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e marriage b u t t h e wife had a g r e a t e r need f o r t h e assets. The District Court h a s f a r r e a c h i n g d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s o l v i n g p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n s and its judgment w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d u n l e s s a clear abuse of d i s c r e t i o n is shown. Zell v. Z e l l ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 33. Where it is c l e a r t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t u - t o r y criteria, t h e judgment w i l l be a f f i r m e d . With r e g a r d t o t h e d i s p u t e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t , a review of t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t each f i n d i n g was supported by t h e evidence. Findings of f a c t should not be set aside unless c l e a r l y erroneous, and due regard should be given t o the c o u r t ' s o p p o r t u n i t y t o judge the c r e d i b i l i t y of the witnesses. Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t e r r o r s i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e f i n d i n g s . The judgment of the District Court is af f irmed. \ Chief J u s t i c e