Title: BIEGALKE v BIEGALKE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13362 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PAUL RIEGALKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, Counter-Claim-Defendant, MADELINE BIEGALKE, Defendant and Counter-Claim Plaintiff. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Sandall, Cavan and Edwards, Billings, Montana John Cavan argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Cate, Lynaugh, Fitzgerald and Huss, Billings, Montana Jerome J. Cate argued, Billings, Montana Filed : Submitted: January 25, 1977 Decided : dday 2 3 I $ ? - 1 ad)l+ Clerk M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the opinion of the Court, This is an appeal from the property division contained i n a decree of divorce granted t o both parties i n the d i s t r i c t court, Custer County. Plaintiff i s now 55 years of age. A s a young man before h i s marriage and upon the death of h i s father, he took over and operated the family farm near Havre, Montana. H e has spent h i s e n t i r e adult l i f e up t o t h i s time operating farms and ranches. Defendant i s approximately the same age a s p l a i n t i f f and has the same l i f e - s t y l e background. The parties were married i n 1948. They resided on the Havre farm u n t i l 1951, when they purchased the present farm- ranch which i s located 14 miles west of Miles City, Montana, consisting of approximately 6,000 acres. The purchase price i n 1951 was $120,000.00. Since 1951, several additional t r a c t s have been added t o the family holdings. A t the original purchase, $57,000.00 was paid into the farm-ranch by p l a i n t i f f out of funds received from the sale of the Havre holdings. When purchased the Miles City farm-ranch was run down, with some old buildings, no water, plumbing o r electricity, After the purchase a t Miles City the defendant contributed a l l the finances she possessed for living expenses and a down payment on farm machinery, for a t o t a l of approximately $1,800.00 t o $1,900.00. During the next 8 years, 6 children were born. In addition t o performing farm chores, defendant raised the children under extremely adverse conditions. There was never more than the bare necessities of l i f e available to the family on the farm o r elsewhere. Defendant drove the children t o school for a number of years and then the family obtained a 3 o r 4 plex i n Miles City which defendant and children occupied during the school years. Defendant t e s t i f i e d she sold books door t o door t o pay tuition for the children's schooling and t o supplement the food budget, etc. The standard of living seemed unnecessarily harsh i n view of an unoccupied, almost complete brick home of 3,000 square feet a t the farm, standing next t o the family housetrailer for some 19 years. This demonstrates that defendant gave a l l she was capable of giving i n labor, self-denial and money aver a period of years, during which farm buildings were erected and the farm improved into one of the finest farm-ranches i n that area of Montana, together with a financial improvement of around a million dollars over the original purchase price. The divorce action was tried September 18, 1975. The court entered i t s findings of facts and conclusions of law and decree January 20, 1976. The parties were each granted an absolute decree of divorce one from the other. Plaintiff was awarded custody of one minor g i r l and defendant awarded custody of the remaining minor boy, Paul Eric, a retarded child. The court found 1) the husband and wife had during the course of their marriage increased the net value of t h e i r assets approximately $1,000,000.00 over and above money o r property contributed a t the time of the marriage; 2) that the accumula- tion of wealth was the result of hard work and sacrifice contri- buted by the parties and the immediate members of t h e i r family; and 3) that the wife's contribution a s a ranch wife, homemaker and mother is equal i n value to the husband's contribution a s a ranch laborer and manager. The property of the p a r t i e s was divided i n t h i s manner: (1) P l a i n t i f f received the ranch-farm and a l l personal property, e t c . i n connection with i t s operation. (2) Defendant received the property i n Miles City. (3) Defendant t o be paid her i n t e r e s t i n marital a s s e t s of $325,000.00, i n t h i s way: a. Miles City property $20,000.00 (Mortgage $9,000.00). b. $5,000.00 immediately. c. $50,000.00 within 60 days following entry of decree ( t h i s date s h a l l be the anniversary date of payment of annual subsequent installments). d. One year from date of decree $50,000.00. e. Remaining balance of $200,000.00 t o be paid i n annual installments of $20,000.00, no i n t e r e s t i f payment paid when due. f . After payment of $75,000.00 by p l a i n t i f f ; upon showing of losses beyond h i s control he can apply t o the court f o r equitable adjustment of payment of the balance. The division was based on the premise t h a t the ranch be kept i n t a c t and operated. I f t h e ranch i s sold by p l a i n t i f f o r h e i r s before payment schedule i s complete, defendant's equity w i l l be $500,000.00 l e s s $27,083.00 ($325,000.00 divided by 12) f o r each f u l l year of operation a s a ranch unit. I f the ranch i s sold on a contract the formula is changed, but defendant's i n t e r e s t remains the same figure. Plaintiff appeals from the portion of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and f i n a l decree which divides the assets i n the manner s e t forth, on the ground the court abused its discretion and that portion of the findings, conclusions and decree is not supported by the evidence o r the law. Plaintiff i n h i s brief on appeal discussed the major cases since 1960 t o date which had t o do with formulation of the law on division of property accumulated during a marriage and has extracted the following guidelines from those cases: 1. The d i s t r i c t court does have the jurisdiction t o make an equitable adjustment of property rights between the husband and wife . 2. N o particular pleading i s necessary, nor i s any recog- nized cause of action necessary t o give the court such jurisdic- tion. The only requirement i s that the language i n the pleading puts the parties on notice that the court i s being asked t o make such an add U s tment . 3. The jurisdiction of the court t o make such adjustment i s founded on its inherent power i n equity cases t o grant complete r e l i e f . 4. The t i t l e t o o r possession of property (except a s t o property not acquired by the joint efforts of the parties) cannot defeat the power of the court t o make such an adjustment. 5. There i s no presumption of g i f t a s between husband and wife i n property matters. 6 . The court's exercise of i t s discretion i n adjusting property rights between husband and wife must be reasonable under the circumstances of the case and there i s no fixed formula o r r a t i o t o be applied i n each instance. 7. I n exercising i t s discretion, the court' s adjustment of property rights must be reasonable and equitably related t o the "contribution" of the parties t o the acquisition of such assets. 8. I n determining "contribution", the court may consider cash contributions; work o r effort directly furthering the acquisition or increase i n value of marital assets; the per- formance of the ordinary duties of the wife o r husband and any extraordinary services performed by the wife o r husband; any other matters i n the individual case which the court reasonably feels constitutes a 'lcontribution", direct o r indirect, t o such acquisition. 9. The court should consider the size o r value of the estate t o be adjusted and the needs of the respective parties for support and t h e i r respective a b i l i t i e s t o support themselves. 10. Th&_ court should consider the nature of the marital assets; whether o r not they are readily divisible; whether o r not they, o r any part thereof, are necessary t o one party o r the other t o carry out the terms of the court's decree, such a s a payment of money i n l i e u of property. W e agree that these guidelines have been established i n the l i n e of cases on t h i s subject during the past 15 years. Although the instant case pre-dates the effective date of the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, the provisions of that act for consideration of Property division are very similar t o the case law. Section 48-321, R.C.M. 1947. Plaintiff suggests the d i s t r i c t court's finding of contri- bution by the defendant is not supported by the evidence. Her cash contributions are i n the record. The statement that she took no active part i n the farming as such, is not correct. This kind of selective treatment of the record disregards the t e s t i - mony of defendant, which is credible and was not refuted, about doing a man's work and wearing out her wedding band chopping wood, turning bales i n the f i e l d , chasing c a t t l e on foot and most important the assistance rendered while p l a i n t i f f was period- i c a l l y disabled for periods of several months a t a time with a chronic disease. The reason she could not spend more time i n the fields seems t o be due i n part t o the fact p l a i n t i f f blessed her with something l i k e 6 children i n 8 years, the care of them somewhat limiting the time a woman could spend out-of-doors. The allegation the family moved t o Miles City i n 1965 and defendant has only occasionally been t o the ranch since i s not a f a i r statement of the record. Plaintiff t e s t i f i e d he moved the family t o town and then sold the t r a i l e r house they occupied and there was no other home for them. Defendant t e s t i f i e d she continued t o cook--do a l l things asked of her a t the farm u n t i l she got her divorce papers. The testimony has not been rebutted. The record does not support the allegation by p l a i n t i f f that the t r i a l judge abused h i s discretion when he found the contribution of the parties t o the accumulation of marital assets t o be equal. Additionally the law cited and approved by p l a i n t i f f supports the t r i a l court. The remaining issue presented by p l a i n t i f f concerns the appraisal of the r e a l and personal property of the parties by Don Mullen, of Mullen Realty, Miles City, Montana. It was agreed by the parties that Mullen be appointed by the court. H i s appraisal was accepted a s Exhibit "N", by the court without objection. H i s qualifications were stipulated. Plaintiff advised the court that he only wished t o examine the witness because of a disagreement with a portion of the contents of the exhibit. Defendant contends the appraiser missed 640 acres of property, 125 cows, 90 yearlings, 7 bulls, 35 steers and 15 heifers owned by the parties. H e did not appraise min6ral rights, cash on hand, o r a $14,000.00 Mercedes automobile owned by p l a i n t i f f . Plaintiff questions and objects t o values placed on the land by the appraiser, i.e. admits i n court he was high on the grazing land. Plaintiff questions the $250.00 per acre on crop land and questions the method of appraisal. W e could continue on with t h i s argument but the fact remains that both parties accepted the appraiser and h i s report and did not object t o h i s qualifications or Exhibit "N", the appraisal. A t t h i s point the t r i e r of the facts has the discretion t o give whatever weight he sees f i t t o the testimony of the expert from 0 t o 100%. Nelson v. C &C Plywood Corp. 154 Mont. 414, 422, 465 P.2d 314. The t r i a l judge has done this. Considering a l l of the evidence a t the t r i a l , the court found (1) a one million dollar increase i n value of the marital assets over and above contribution a t the time of the marriage, (2) defendant's contribution was equal t o p l a i n t i f f ' s ; (3) de- fendant received approximately 26% of the value but t h i s also includes the care and education of Eric, a retarded boy, who i n a l l probability w i l l not be emancipated a t the legal age of majority but w i l l remain with h i s mother. The only obligation p l a i n t i f f h i s i s t o assume major medical, dental and education ex- pense, undefined. Finding no abuse of the court's discretion and no errors i n law, the judgment of the t r i a l cou - 8 - We Concur: