Title: CONVERSE v CONVERSE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-425
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 13, 1982

No. 81-425 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1982 I N R E T H E MARRIAGE O F SUSAN D. CONVERSE, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vs- EVERETT C. CONVERSE, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n arid f o r t h e County o f Yellowstone, The Honorable Diane G. B a r z , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: F e l t and Martin, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Lynauyh, F i t z g e r a l d & Skaggs, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : March 11, 1982 Decided: May 1 3 , 1982 M r . J u s t l c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinlon of t h e Court. T h i s is a n a p p e a l f r o m a judgment a p p o r t i o n i n g marital a s s e t s i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i - c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County o f Yellowstone. On A p r i l 7, 1980, t h e w i f e , Susan D. Converse, p e t i - t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r a d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e . The p a r t i e s were unable t o a g r e e on a p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n b u t d i d allow t h e c o u r t to e n t e r a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n on May 27, 1980. I n its d e c r e e t h e c o u r t r e s e r v e d t h e r i g h t t o h e a r , a t a l a t e r d a t e , a l l o t h e r m a t t e r s r a i s e d by t h e p l e a d i n g s , i n c l u d i n g t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . An ev i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e remaining i s s u e s commenced on F e b r u a r y 26, 1981. On A p r i l 14, 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d its f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and o r d e r , a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e marital a s s e t s . The c o u r t awarded t h e husband a n e t amount o f $38,230 and t h e w i f e a n e t amount o f $33,871. Judgment w a s e n t e r e d on A p r i l 24, 1981, and t h e husband, E v e r e t t C. Converse, now a p p e a l s . The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d o n May 1 3 , 1 9 7 2 , i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. There were no c h i l d r e n born of t h e m a r r i a g e , b u t t h e husband had t w o c h i l d r e n from a p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e whom he helped s u p p o r t , and t h e w i f e had one c h i l d from a p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e who r e s i d e d w i t h t h e p a r t i e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e d u r a t i o n of t h e i r m a r r i a g e . P r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e w i f e worked as a b a r t e n d e r and waitress. A t t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e q u e s t , t h e w i f e q u i t h e r job a f t e r t h e y were m a r r i e d and worked w i t h t h e husband i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n b u s i n e s s , kennel b u s i n e s s and as a home- ~ n a k e r . S i n c e t h e d i v o r c e , t h e w i f e h a s r e t u r n e d to h e r former o c c u p a t i o n and makes approximately $500 p e r month. The w i f e e n t e r e d t h e m a r r i a g e i n p o s s e s s i o n of t w o h o r s e s , t-ack g e a r and a c a r . From t h e m a r r i a g e s h e r e t a i n e d t h e h o r s e s , t h e c a r , household items, k e n n e l s and a rnotor home. The husband was a foreman i n a c o n s t r u c t . i o n company when t-he p a r t i e s m a r r i e d . L a t e r , he became a p a r t n e r i n a c o n s t r u c t i o n company and i n 1978, t h e p a r t - i e s s t a r t e d t h e i r own c o n s t r u c t i o n b u s i n e s s . The husband e n t e r e d t h e m a r r i a g e w i t h p e r s o n a l a f f e c t s and a f u l l a r r a y o f c a r p e n t r y t o o l s . From t h e m a r r i a g e he r e t a i n e d a l l t h e t o o l s and a s s e t s o f t h e const.ruct.ion company. H e has c o n t i n u e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c - t i o n b u s i n e s s , and t.he D i s t r i c t Court determined t-hat t h e husband h a s t h e pot.entia1 t o e a r n somewhere bet-ween $20,000 and $30,000 p e r y e a r . The o n l y r e a l p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d by t h e p a r t i e s was a twenty-acre t r a c t of unimproved p r o p e r t y , valued a t $45,000 by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. T h i s p r o p e r t y was awarded t o t h e husband, provided he pay t h e w i f e $22,500 or, a l t - e r n a - t i v e l y , t h e pr0pert.y was t o be s o l d and t h e proceeds d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between husband and wife. The i s s u e s r a i s e d by t.he husband on a p p e a l a r e : 1. Did t h e District Court err by admit-t-ing h e a r s a y evidence? 2. Did t h e District. Court. err i n its v a l u a t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s ? 3 . Did t h e e v i d e n c e f a i l to s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and o r d e r e n t e r e d by t.he D i s t r i c t Court? The husband ' s cont-ention t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court. e r r e d by a d m i t t i n g h e a r s a y evidence is n o t m e r i t o r i o u s . The a l l e g e d h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e consisted of two i n s t a n c e s where t h e c o u r t allowed t h e w i f e t o t e s t i f y as t o t h e v a l u e o f c e r t a i n marital assets. I n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e , t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e v a l u e of some B r i t t a n y S p a n i e l s from t h e p a r t i e s ' k e n n e l . She had based t h e a p p r a i s a l on h e r own e x p e r i e n c e i n o p e r a t i n g k e n n e l s and on a l e t t e r , e n t e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e f o r i l l u s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s , from a M r . Glenn who was a p p a r e n t l y k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t B r i t t a n y S p a n i e l s i n g e n e r a l a n d f a m i l i a r w i t h h e r dogs s p e c i f i c a l l y . The second a l l e g e d e r r o r o c c u r r e d when t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d as to t h e v a l u e o f c e r t a i n house p l a n s i n t h e husband's p o s s e s s i o n . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e house p l a n s were wort12 about $50 each and t h a t s h e had a r r i v e d a t t h a t v a l u e a £ ter c o n v e r s i n g w i t h numerous i n d i v i d u a l s involved i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n b u s i n e s s . While t h e l e t t e r is indeed h e a r s a y , it was o n l y used f o r i l l u s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s and n o t f o r t h e t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r b e i n g a s s e r t e d . Rule 8 0 1 ( c ) , Mont.K.Evid. Also, Montana h a s always allowed owners t o t e s t i f y as to t h e v a l u e o f t h e i r animals. Dutton v. Rocky Mountain Phosphates ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 54, 438 P.2d 674. F u r t h e r , as s t a t e d a t 3 1 Am. J u r . 2d E x p e r t and Opinion Evidence, S 137 a t 685: ". . . P u r e l y h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e as t o t h e v a l u e of a c h a t t e l h a s been h e l d i n s u f f i c i e n t a s b a s i s f o r t e s t i m o n y p r e d i c a t e d t h e r e o n by t h e owner, b u t i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d i n p a r t from o t h e r s h a s been h e l d t o be u n o b j e c t i o n a b l e , and t h e p r i c i n g of similar articles seems t o be an approved way of o b t a i n i n g knowledge. . . " F i n a l l y , a s t h i s C o u r t h e l d i n I n re Marriage of Schwartz ( 1979 ) , - Mont . - , 602 P.2d 175, 177, 36 St.Rep. 1980, " [ e l r r o r may n o t be p r e d i c a t e d upon a r u l i n g which admits o r e x c l u d e s e v i d e n c e u n l e s s it a f f e c t s a s u b s t a n t - i a l r i g h t . of t h e o b j e c t - i n g p a r t y . " Here, t h e evidence t h a t was admitt-ed was h a r m l e s s error and d i d n o t " s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t " t h e r i g h t s o f t h e husband. The v a l u a t i o n of t h e marit-a1 a s s e t s by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. w a s p r o p e r . T h i s Court h e l d i n Levandowski v. Levandowski ( 1981) , - Mont . , 630 P.2d 239, 38 St..Rep. - 10U2, that.: "A D i s t r i c t 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 i t s judgment w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d u n l e s s a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n is shown . . . The test f o r reviewing t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n is: Did t.he D i s t . r i c t Court i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f its d i s c r e t i o n act a r b i t r a r i l y wit-hout employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment., o r exceed t h e bounds o f r e a s o n i n view o f a l l of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ? [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . 1 " 630 P.2d a t 241. See a l s o : Zell v. Zell ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 33; I n r e t h e Marriage of Brown ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 417, 587 P.2d W e a l s o h e l d i n Dickerson v. Dickerson ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont . - , 614 P.2d 521, 37 St.Rep. 1286, t h a t : "The District C o u r t , as t h e trier o f f a c t i n t h i s t r i a l w i t h o u t a j u r y , a c c e p t e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t and r e j e c t e d t h e e x p e r t ' s v a l u a t i o n . T h i s is n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . A s we e x p l a i n e d i n B i e g a l k e , I . . . t h e t r i e r o f t h e f a c t s h a s t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o g i v e whatever weight he sees f i t to t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e e x p e r t from 0 t o l o o % . ' B i e g a l k e , 1 7 2 Mont. a t 317, 564 P.2d a t 990. Unless a f i n d i n g o f f a c t is c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , it c a n n o t be set a s i d e b y t h i s C o u r t . S e e R u l e 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P." 614 P.2d a t 524. The husband ' s cont-ention t-hat. t h e D i s t r i c t Court. e r r e d because it chose t h e w i f e ' s a p p r a i s a l s o v e r h i s i s c l e a r l y w i t h o u t m e r i t i n l i g h t o f t h e above r u l i n g s . The c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d because it v a l u e d t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y a t $45,U00 by a v e r a g i n g t h e two a p p r a i s a l s is also w i t h o u t m e r i t . See, I n Re Marriage of Kaasa ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 591 P.2d 1110, 36 St.Rep. 425; I n Re t h e - - k a r r i a g e of J e n s e n ( 1981) , - Mont . - , 631 P.2d 700, 38 St.Rep. 1109. A r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t.hat t h e f i g u r e o f $45,000 was n o t chosen a r b i t r a r i l y and was w e l l s u p p o r t e d by t.he e v i d e n c e . There was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e present-ed t o s u p p o r t t h e District. C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f fact., c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w and o r d e r . I n t h e r e c e n t d e c i s i o n o f S t ~ r a t f o r d v. S t r a t f o r d ( 1 9 8 1 ) I - Mont . - , 631 P.2d 296, 38 St..Rep. 1093, w e s t a t e d : " F i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law p r o v i d e a f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e c o u r t ' s judg- ment-. Marriage o f Barron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont.. 161, 580 P.2d 936. T h i s f o u n d a t i o n need n o t c o n s i s t o f a m u l t i t u d e o f e v i d e n t i a r y f a c t - s , but. t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t must set f o r t h a r e c o r d a t i o n o f t h e e s s e n t i a l and d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t s upon which t h e c o u r t r e s t e d i t s conclu- s i o n s o f law and w i t h o u t which t.he judgment would l a c k s u p p o r t . J o n e s v. J o n e s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont., 620 P.2d 850, 37 St.Rep. 1973." 631 P.2d a t 298. When a p p l y i n g t h i s st.andard t o t h e c a s e at. hand, it. is c l e a r t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and o r d e r were w e l l support-ed by t h e e v i d e n c e . The husband c o n t e n d s t h a t a d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d is set. o u t i n I n re t h e Marriage o f P e t e r s o n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Iqon t . - I 636 P.2d 821, 38 St.Rep. 1723. I n P e t e r s o n , t h e r e was r o u g h l y a $600,000 d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e v a r i o u s a p p r a i s e r s ' v a l u e s and w e s t a t e d : " I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t s h o u l d s t a t e its r e a s o n s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g v a l u a t i o n . . . How- e v e r , w e w i l l uphold a p r o p e r e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t - i o n b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t and i f a r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n e x i s t s f o r a d o p t i n g t h e lower v a l u e , it should be s t a t e d . " 636 P.2d a t 824. I n t h i s c a s e , w h i l e t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t s p e c i - f i c a l l y set. o u t an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r s e t t i n g t h e v a l u a t i o n a t $45,000 f o r t h e l a n d , t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d at. t r i a l w a s s u f f i c i e n t , w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n , t o s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i g u r e . B o t h a p p r a i s e r s t . e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e valuat.ion t-hey were g i v i n g could v a r y up or down somewhat depending on v a r i o u s f a c t o r s . The f a c t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c h o s e a f i g u r e i n t h e m i d d l e w i t h o u t f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n is e a s i l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e from t h e e v i d e n c e and was t h e r e f o r e not. e r r o n e o u s . The w i f e , t.he r e s p o n d e n t h e r e i n , a l l e g e s that. t.he D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by n o t e q u i t a b l y d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y . She raises t h i s i s s u e n o t a s a c r o s s - a p p e l l a n t b u t i n s t e a d a t t e m p t s to invoke Rule 14, M.R.App.Civ.P. W e cannot. r e v i e w t h e i s s u e because r e s p o n d e n t f a i l s t o p r o p e r l y invoke t h e use of Rule 14, M.R.App.Civ.P. In Johnson v . T i n d a l l ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. - , 635 P.2d 266, 38 St.Kep. 1763, w e h e l d : "Although Rule 14 p r o v i d e s f o r review o f m a t t e r s by cross-assignment o f e r r o r , t h i s d o e s n o t e l i m i n a t e t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r c r o s s - a p p e a l by a r e s p o n d e n t who s e e k s review o f r u l i n g s on matt.ers s e p a r a t e and d i s t - i n c t from t h o s e sought to be reviewed by t h e a p p e l l a n t . F r a n c i s c o v. F r a n c i s c o ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 120 Mont. 468, 470, 1 9 1 P.2d 317, 319. A r e s p o n d e n t who h a s n o t cross-appealed may n o t s e e k a determina- t i o n of t h e amount involved more f a v o r a b l e t o him t h a n t , h a t made by t h e c o u r t b e l o w . M e c h a n i c s U n i v e r s a l J o i n t C o . v . C u l h a n e ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 299 U.S. 51, 58, 57 S.Ct. 81, 84-85, 8 1 L.Ed. 33, 38; 5 Am.Jur.2d A p p e a l and E r r o r , S 707." 635 P.2d a t 268. The judgment o f t.he D i s t r i c t C o u r t is h e r e b y a f f i r m e d . We concur: Chief Justice