Title: TUREMAN v TUREMAN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 80-121 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 LIN TUREMAN, Petitioner and ~espondent, VS . SALLY TUREMAN, Appellant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial ~istrict, Honorable Joseph B. Gary, Judge presiding. In and for the County of Gallatin. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Morrow, Sedivy, Olson and Scully, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Larry D. Whitman, West Yellowstone, Montana Submitted on briefs: August 13, 1980 - Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. S a l l y Tureman, t h e w i f e of Lin Tureman, a p p e a l s from t h e p o r t i o n of a m a r r i a g e d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e e n t e r e d by t h e G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t Court d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t s h e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a s h a r e of t h e p r o p e r t y accumulated by t h e husband s i n c e t h e p a r t i e s ' s e p a r a t i o n e i g h t y e a r s e a r l i e r . She a l s o a p p e a l s from t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t h a t s h e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments f o r t h e p r e v i o u s e i g h t y e a r s . W e a f f i r m t h e judgment. The f o c a l p o i n t of t h e w i f e ' s c o n t e n t i o n s is two agreements e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e p a r t i e s when t h e y s e p a r a t e d . One of t h e s e agreements gave custody of t h e p a r t i e s c h i l d t o t h e w i f e and r e q u i r e d t h e husband t o pay $75 p e r month i n c h i l d s u p p o r t . The o t h e r agreement was a buy-out agreement where t h e husband would pay $22,400 t o t h e w i f e f o r her s h a r e of t h e p a r t i e s ' major a s s e t , a bar and r e s t a u r a n t i n West Yellowstone. The w i f e contends t h e second agreement was n o t a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement and should n o t have been recognized a s such by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . She f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s b o t h a g r e e m e n t s a r e u n c o n s c i o n a b l e , and w e r e e n t e r e d i n t o by means of f r a u d , d u r e s s and undue i n f l u e n c e and a r e t h u s void. She r e q u e s t s one-half of t h e e s t a t e accumulated by t h e husband s i n c e t h e s e p a r a t i o n and a s k s t h a t s h e be given back c h i l d s u p p o r t of $200 p e r month. The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a common law m a r r i a g e around 1957. There was one c h i l d born t o t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e c h i l d has s i n c e turned 1 8 , joined t h e m i l i t a r y and is f i n a n c i a l l y independent. During t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e couple earned a l i v i n g through v a r i o u s means i n c l u d i n g gambling and d e a l i n g c a r d s . I n 1968, t h e y borrowed money t o a c q u i r e a l i q u o r l i c e n s e and t a k e a l e a s e on a b a r . S h o r t l y a f t e r w a r d s , t h e y added a r e s t a u r a n t . I n 1 9 7 0 , t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d permanently. A c o n t r a c t d a t e d A p r i l 15, 1970 was signed whereby t h e w i f e agreed t o s e l l her i n t e r e s t i n t h e b a r - r e s t a u r a n t t o t h e husband. The b u s i n e s s was g i v e n a n e t v a l u e of $44,800. The husband agreed t o pay t h e w i f e one-half of t h a t amount i n cash i n s t a l l m e n t s over t h e n e x t four y e a r s a t which time t h e w i f e would s i g n over t o him her i n t e r e s t i n t h e l i q u o r l i c e n s e . He a l s o agreed t o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r $50,000 i n d e b t s on t h e b a r - r e s t a u r a n t and $10,000 i n d e l i n q u e n t l e a s e payments. By a second agreement a l s o d a t e d A p r i l 1 5 , 1970, t h e w i f e assumed custody of t h e c h i l d and t h e husband agreed t o pay t h e w i f e $75 p e r month f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t . A Bozeman a t t o r n e y a s s i s t e d i n p r e p a r i n g t h e s e agree- ments. Both p a r t i e s v i g o r o u s l y a s s e r t t h a t he was c o n t a c t e d f i r s t by t h e o t h e r p a r t y , and t h e n a c t e d s o l e l y on b e h a l f of t h a t p a r t y . The evidence does n o t s u p p o r t e i t h e r s i d e , however. The a t t o r n e y was a v a i l a b l e and t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l . Relying mostly on h i s own r e c o r d s , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had r e p r e s e n t e d t h e w i f e on p r e v i o u s m a t t e r s , b u t i n t h i s c a s e , he was n o t s u r e which p a r t y had c o n t a c t e d him f i r s t . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t both p a r t i e s had been p a r t of t h e b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s , and t h e agreement had been r e w r i t t e n a couple of times changing terms b e n e f i c i a l t o both p a r t i e s . The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t t h e husband d i d pay t h e $22,400 t o t h e w i f e , and t h a t i n 1974, s h e signed over her i n t e r e s t i n t h e l i q u o r l i c e n s e t o him. S i n c e t h e time of s e p a r a t i o n i n 1970, t h e w i f e h a s i n v e s t e d t h e money i n a c a f e , and l a t e r , a bar of her own. By t h e time of t r i a l , however, s h e had e i t h e r l o s t or g i v e n it a l l away. She was employed a t s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t j o b s f o l l o w i n g t h e s e p a r a t i o n . She was a t r u c k d r i v e r , a w a i t r e s s , and a n a s s i s t a n t manager of a p i z z a p a r l o r e a r n i n g $1,000 p e r month. She was a p p a r e n t l y u n a b l e t o s a v e any o f h e r e a r n i n g s . A t t h e t i m e of d i s s o l u t i o n , s h e c l a i m e d o n l y $1,600 w o r t h o f a s s e t s . The husband, on t h e o t h e r hand, was more s u c c e s s f u l f i n a n c i a l l y . H e s t a y e d i n West Y e l l o w s t o n e and c o n t i n u e d t o o p e r a t e t h e b a r and r e s t a u r a n t . By t h e time o f t h e d i s s o l u t i o n , he had p a i d o f f most o f h i s d e b t s , had i n v e s t e d i n a commercial f i s h i n g b o a t , and was making t a x a b l e income o f $15,000 t o $18,000 p e r y e a r . The t r i a l c o u r t found h i s a s s e t s t o be worth $187,000. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h e w i f e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a s h a r e o f t h e s e a s s e t s . I t found t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y had been e q u a l l y d i v i d e d when t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d and t h a t t h e husband was e n t i t l e d t o a l l t h e p r o p e r t y he had accumulated s i n c e t h a t time. The w i f e was n o t f o r g o t t e n , though. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t by r e a s o n o f h e r background i n t h e food and r e s t a u r a n t b u s i n e s s , s h e would be a b l e t o make a l i v i n g f o r h e r s e l f w i t h a d d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g a s a c h e f . The t r i a l c o u r t awarded h e r $600 p e r month w h i l e a t t e n d i n g s c h o o l f o r two y e a r s t o become a c h e f . I n a d d i t i o n t o awarding m a i n t e n a n c e , t h e c o u r t found t h a t s h e was w i t h o u t s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s t o pay h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s and o r d e r e d t h e husband t o pay t h e s e f e e s . The w i f e ' s f i r s t a p p r o a c h was t o a t t a c k t h e a g r e e m e n t s . She a s s e r t e d b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t h e agreement t o s e l l h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e b a r - r e s t a u r a n t was n o t a m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. She made s i m i l a r a s s e r t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h i l d c u s t o d y and s u p p o r t agreement. Both a g r e e m e n t s were, however, e n t e r e d i n t o w i t h s e p a r a t i o n i n mind and b o t h accomplished what was e x p e c t e d t o happen as a r e s u l t o f s e p a r a t i o n . These a g r e e m e n t s were i n t e n d e d t o i n c l u d e a d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s . The w i f e d i d n o t p r o v e o t h e r w i s e . The w i f e a l s o a t t a c k s t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement on the g r o u n d s t h a t it is u n c o n s c i o n a b l e , was s i g n e d under d u r e s s and undue i n f l u e n c e , was f r a u d u l e n t l y p r o c u r e d , and t h e r e f o r e v o i d . The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e had been b e a t e n s e v e r a l times b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d and t h a t s h e was i n f e a r o f f u r t h e r b e a t i n g s . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e s i g n e d t h e a g r e e m e n t s o u t o f f e a r o f b e i n g b e a t e n and b e c a u s e s h e f e l t s h e m i g h t l o s e h e r c h i l d . She f u r t h e r a l l e g e s s h e w a s d e n i e d c o u n s e l a t t h a t t i m e . On t h i s b a s i s , s h e now c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t f i n d i n g t h i s agreement v o i d . The husband r e f u t e s t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s . The agreement i t s e l f a p p e a r s f a i r on i t s f a c e . The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t n o t o n l y d i d t h e husband a g r e e t o p a y t h e w i f e 50 p e r c e n t o f t h e n e t v a l u e o f t h e i r a s s e t s , b u t he a l s o assumed some $60,000 i n d e b t s on t h e b u s i n e s s . The t r i a l r e c o r d d o e s n o t e s t a b l i s h f r a u d , undue i n f l u e n c e , d u r e s s o r u n c o n s c i o n a b i l i t y . The n e x t l i n e o f a t t a c k by t h e w i f e is h e r a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f a c t o r s set o u t i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, even though t h e r e was a p r e - e x i s t i n g p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n a g r e e m e n t a n d c h i l d c u s t o d y and s u p p o r t agreement i n e f f e c t . T h i s s t a t u t e a l l o w s t h e c o u r t t o e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s c o n s i d e r i n g s u c h t h i n g s a s t h e a g e , h e a l t h , o c c u p a t i o n , v o c a t i o n a l s k i l l s , e s t a t e , and l i a b i l i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s . B u t t h e e f f e c t o f t h e s e p a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d . S e c t i o n 40-4-201, PICA, r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e terms of t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement be b i n d i n g upon t h e c o u r t p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e terms a r e n o t u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t f i n d t h e agreement t o be u n c o n s c i o n a b l e and t h e record does n o t r e f l e c t an e r r o r i n h i s f a i l u r e t o do S O . The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t t h e major a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s had been e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e d i n 1970 by agreement. I t a l s o found t h a t t h e husband was e n t i t l e d t o h i s subsequent a c q u i s i t i o n s of p r o p e r t y and t h e a p p r e c i a t i o n i n v a l u e due t o i n f l a t i o n . The w i f e cannot now c l a i m t h a t s h e is e n t i t l e d t o a s h a r e of t h e husband's accumulated e s t a t e on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r marriage. S i n c e 1970, t h e m a r r i a g e h a s o n l y e x i s t e d l e g a l l y - - t h e p a r t i e s had long s i n c e gone t h e i r s e p a r a t e ways. The l a p s e of time from t h e s e p a r a t i o n t o t h e d i s s o l u t i o n does n o t g i v e t h e w i f e r i g h t s s h e d i d n o t o t h e r w i s e have. The t r i a l c o u r t reviewed what happened i n 1970, found t h a t t h e r e had been f a i r d e a l i n g s between t h e p a r t i e s , and t h u s a r e bound by t h e i r agreements. A r e a l e s t a t e salesman t e s t i f i e d on t h e w i f e ' s behalf a s t o t h e c u r r e n t v a l u e of t h e b a r - r e s t a u r a n t . The w i f e m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t u s i n g t h a t v a l u e i n its f i n d i n g s , b u t r a t h e r a c c e p t i n g t h e lower v a l u e g i v e n by t h e husband. W e n o t e t h e salesman d i d o n l y a quick a p p r a i s a l . He f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t a s o n l y a l e a s e - hold i n t e r e s t e x p i r i n g i n 1981, and he d i d n o t examine t h e b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o f i t p o t e n t i a l . Moreover, assuming e r r o r i n v a l u a t i o n , t h e e r r o r is harmless because t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e w i f e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o any o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d a f t e r t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement and s e p a r a t i o n . Concerning c h i l d s u p p o r t , t h e w i f e a s s e t s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h a t t h e husband owed back c h i l d s u p p o r t and f a i l i n g t o i n c r e a s e it r e t r o a c t i v e l y from t h e time of s e p a r a t i o n from $75 p e r month t o $200 p e r month. The wife had no complaints a s t o t h e adequacy of t h e child support agreement during the eight year separation. Her claim for retroactive increased child support payments for the eight-year period is more than hollow. Furthermore, the trial court considered the wife's contention that the husband failed to make the $75 per month payments pursuant to the written agreement, but found that the evidence did not preponderate in favor of either party on this issue, and therefore denied her claim. The record supports this decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 9 d 9 A Justic We Concur: ChieE Justice