No. 81-56 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1981 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ELEANOR ANNIE CREON, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

VS . 

EUGENE EARL CREON, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lincoln 

Honorable Robert C. Holter, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Moore and Doran, Kalispell, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Ann German, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted on briefs: August 27, 1981 

Decided : 

' lQ41 

Clerk 
The court valued and distributed the property of the parties as follows: 

TO the Wife: 

Farm Property, Lincoln Co. $ 65,900.00 

Residence, 211 Nevada 12,000.00 

John Deere Tractor 4,500.00 

Mower, Conditioner 1,800.00 

Bailer 100.00 

12' John Deere Plow 500.00 

Bailer, Elevator 65.00 

Truck Snow Plow 500.00 

St. Regis Stock, except "Bonus Stock" 3,000.00 

1971 Chrysler 250.00 

15 Head Livestock 5,000.00 

TOTAL $ 93,615-00 

To the Husband: 

MC-40 Crawler 

M. M. Tractor 

2 Farm Tractors 

Carpentry and Mechanics Tools 

Boat Motors, Chain Saws, etc. 

1977 Dodge Truck 

1970 Chrysler 

1940 Dodge Truck 

1937 Chrysler Imperial 

5th Wheel Trailer 

Misc. * , Antique Outboard Motors, 

32/20 Pistol, 3 Cameras, Oak 

Table and Distinctly Personal 

Items 

TOTAL $15,275.00 

The court made this distribution of property in lieu of maintenance and ordered that each party be responsible for his own 

attorney fees. 

On appeal the husband raised the issue of whether the 

District Court abused its discretion in distributing the marital 

property and whether the findings of fact are supported by suff icient evidence. Specifically, the husband contends that the 

distribution of property is inequitable and that the trial court 

failed to take into consideration his substantial contributions 

to the support of his family and improvements to the property. 

The husband also maintains that the valuation of certain items of 
Mr. Chief ~ustice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

The marriage of the parties was dissolved by decree 

entered December 31, 1979. The determination of property division, maintenance and attorney fees was resewed for a hearing 

which was held on July 14 and 17, 1980. The District Court of 

Lincoln County entered its findings, conclusions and judgment on 

October 8, 1980. The husband appeals from the property division. 

The parties entered into a common law marriage commencing 

in 1951 after the husband obtained a dissolution of a prior 

marriage. The relationship of the parties dates from 1947. They 

have raised one child who was an adult at time of trial. 

The wife acquired a residence in Libby, Montana, during 

her prior marriage which was dissolved in 1947. In 1949, a farm 

of 79 acres was purchased for a consideration of $5,000. The 

deed is dated June 23, 1949 and is to "Eleanor A. Huffman, single 

woman of Libby, Montana." During the marriage the parties 

resided on the farm and both worked on it and contributed to it. 

In 1971 the husband bought a trailer house in Libby and primarily 

1 ived there thereafter . During the marriage the husband was employed at St. Regis 

Lumber Company, formerly J. Neils Lumber Company. He retired in 

1980 and receives a pension of $596 per month and Social Security 

benefits of $519 per month. The husband devoted his wages during 

the marriage to the support of the family and to improvements on 

the farm and the house in Libby. Since 1978 the wife has supported herself by occasional employment, sale of timber from the 

farm and raising cattle on the farm. She receives Social 

Security of approximately $300 per month, and rent from the house 

in Libby of $100 per month. The court found she could expect an 

income of approximately $3,000 to $5,000 from the farm. The wife 

testified she desired to stay on the farm and make it prof itable. 

The husband had no desire to keep the farm, but wanted it sold 

and the proceeds divided. 
personal property is in error. 

In determining whether the trial court abused its 

discretion, the reviewing court does not substitute its judgment 

for that of the trial court. The standard for review is whether 

the trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in 

substantial injustice. See In re the Marriage of Stratford 

(1981) 1 Mont . , 631 P.2d 296, 38 St.Rep. 1093; Zell v. Zell 

(1977), 174 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 33. 

The ~istrict Court exercised reasoned judgment in dividing 

the property as set forth above, taking into consideration the 

factors in section 40-4-202, MCA. The husband has an incane of 

$13,380 per year, while the wife receives approximately $7,200 

per year from various sources including the farm. The District 

Court reasoned that an award of the farm to the wife would enable 

her to meet her expenses without maintenance from the husband. 

The District Court was well aware of the debts of the parties and 

the encumbrances on the property awarded to each. Without the farm 

and the income, however small, that it provides for the wife, she 

could not support herself. The improvements on the farm are 

substantially deteriorated and the land is not suitable for 

development. No substantial injustice resulted by the award of 

the farm to the wife. 

The husband contests the valuation given by the ~istrict 

Court to the fifth wheel trailer, the 1977 Dodge truck and the 

tools. The husband would value the trailer at $0 due to a $5,500 

encumbrance, the Dodge truck at $1,500 and the tools at $400. 

The trial court clearly did consider the outstanding debts 

secured by the trailer and Dodge truck. Further, the husband 

presented no valuation of the Dodge truck to the court below and he 

may not on appeal assert a figure not given for the trial court's 

consideration. The value assigned to the truck is reasonable. 

The wife valued the tools at $3,000 and the husband disagreed. 
The District Court as trier of fact decided to accept the wife's 

valuation as to the tools, and this determination will stand 

unless it is clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. We find 

no error. The trial court accepted the husband's valuations of 

several other items of property in lieu of the wife's lower 

estimates. These decisions are left to the trial courtls 

j udgmen t . 

Af f irmed . 

Chief Justice 

We concur: