Title: TURVILLE v TURVILLE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12871
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 1, 1975

No. 12871 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 BERTIE TURVILLE, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - DAVID TURVILLE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Dzivi, Conklin, Johnson and Nybo, Great F a l l s , Montana L. D. Nybo argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Charles M. Joslyn argued, Choteau, Montana Submitted: March 3 , 1975 Decided : -hPf? - 1 . ' ! 9-?s r- \ r ) , c.: ; . 3 5 7 5 Filed: .. Mr.. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court . This i s an appeal from a divorce a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Teton County. The s o l e i s s u e on appeal i s whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n ordering t h e s a l e of a farm j o i n t l y owned by t h e p a r t i e s i n order t o compensate t h e wife f o r her i n t e r e s t i n t h e property. The p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n , David T u r v i l l e and B e r t i e T u r v i l l e were married on August 20, 1956. Four c h i l d r e n were born of t h i s marriage. Their ages a t t h e t i m e t h e complaint was f i l e d were: Daniel, age 17; Walter, age 1 6 ; Laura, age 15; and E a r l a , age 13. The farm i n question c o n s i s t s of 320 a c r e s and is located near F a i r f i e l d , Montana. It was o r i g i n a l l y purchased by David and h i s brother i n 1954 f o r $37,000. However, subsequent t o t h e marriage t h e b r o t h e r ' s i n t e r e s t was purchased by t h e p a r t i e s . I n 1972, t h e e n t i r e farm was refinanced and placed j o i n t l y i n t h e names of t h e p a r t i e s , pursuant t o t h e t e r m s of t h e financing agreement. The record d i s c l o s e s t h a t during t h e years 1957 through 1971, a period of 15 years, t h e farm produced a t o t a l n e t income of only $19,171.18. I n 1972, t h e farm sustained a n e t l o s s of $8,349.09. To support a growing family during t h e s e l e a n y e a r s , t h e wife, B e r t i e , w a s compelled t o seek o u t s i d e employment i n a d d i t i o n t o a s s i s t i n g David i n t h e operation of t h e farm. A l l of E e r t i e t s off-farm income was contributed t o a j o i n t checking account which helped defray t h e f a m i l y ' s l i v i n g expenses. The record d i s c l o s e s B e r t i e contributed t h e sum of $42,402.35 during t h e y e a r s of 1957-1972. During t h o s e same years, David's main occupation was t h e operation of t h e farm. H i s e f f o r t s t o secure o u t s i d e employment were l a r g e l y f u t i l e because of a hearing de- f i c i e n c y of a t l e a s t 50%. I n January 1973, B e r t i e f i l e d f o r a divorce and p e t i t i o n e d t h e court f o r custody of t h e children; $50 per month a s c h i l d support f o r each c h i l d i n addition t o f u t u r e medical and d e n t a l expenses of each c h i l d ; and, attorney f e e s . She a l s o p e t i t i o n e d t o have a settlement of her r i g h t s i n t h e farm. David's answer alleged, i n t e r a l i a , t h a t it would be inequitable t o order a physical d i v i s i o n of t h e farm o r t o d i r e c t t h a t it be sold be- cause he was unable t o pursue any other occupation except farming. O n May 11, 1973, t h i s a c t i o n was t r i e d and-on September 1 2 , 1973, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered a decree which dissolved t h e marriage; granted custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o B e r t i e , and, ordered David t o pay $50 per month per c h i l d as c h i l d support, i n addition t o t h e f u t u r e medical and d e n t a l expenses of t h e children. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o ordered t h e farm t o be equally divided between t h e p a r t i e s . O n October 19, 1973, David f i l e d a motion f o r a new t r i a l , o r i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , t o amend t h e findings and conclu- s i o n s of t h e court. O n January 11, 1973, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t granted a new t r i a l upon t h e i s s u e of t h e respective property r i g h t s only. After a d d i t i o n a l testimony was heard, t h e c o u r t entered an order mandating t h a t t h e farm and t h e personal prop- e r t y used i n connection with t h e farming operation be placed up- on t h e market and sold. The proceeds from t h e sale were t o be equally divided between t h e p a r t i e s a f t e r payment of t h e expenses of s a l e , encumbrances a g a i n s t t h e property and t h e debts of t h e marriage e x i s t i n g a s of t h e d a t e of t h e divorce. David's c h i l d support obligation was reduced from $50 t o $40 per month f o r each c h i l d . It i s from t h i s order d i r e c t i n g t h e farm t o be sold t h a t David appeals. I n Cook v . Cook, 159 Mont. 98, 1 0 4 , 495 P.2d 591, Montana has recognized t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t i n equitably dividing t h e property of t h e p a r t i e s t o a divorce action: "Each case must be looked a t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t individually with an eye t o i t s unique circum- stances. " Consequently, t h e d i s t r i c t court is clothed with d i s c r e t i o n i n s e t t l i n g t h e respective property r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s . I n Porter v. P o r t e r , 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538, t h i s Court recognized t h i s d i s c r e t i o n and s t a t e d : "This Court is w e l l aware of i t s r o l e when asked t o look i n t o matters of abuse of d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and we have noted t h e number of cases and o t h e r c i t a t i o n s given u s by t h e p a r t i e s . W e f e e l an approved composite p o s i t i o n simply s t a t e d would be: a reviewing c o u r t i s never j u s t i f i e d i n s u b s t i t u t i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l court. In determining whether t h e t r i a l court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e question is not whether t h e reviewing c o u r t agrees with t h e t r i a l c o u r t , but r a t h e r , d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e exercise of i t s d i s c r e t i o n a c t a r b i t r a r i l y without t h e employment of conscientious judgment o r exceed t h e bounds of reason, i n view of a l l t h e circumstances, ignoring recosnized p r i n c i p l e s r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e . " W e decline t o s u b s t i t u t e our d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h a t of t h e d i s t r i c t c a u r t . Considering t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e a c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was reasonable and r e a l - i s t i c , e s p e c i a l l y when these a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s a r e shown: 1. The r e a l property taxes on t h e farm were delinquent f o r t h e second half of 1972 and f o r t h e e n t i r e year of 1973. 2 . The annual payment on t h e mortgage f o r t h e year 1974 w a s unpaid and was approximately 3 months delinquent a s of t h e d a t e of t h e second t r i a l . 3. The p a r t i e s ' c u r r e n t d e b t s were q u i t e s u b s t a n t i a l i n view of t h e earning capacity of t h e farm. 4. B e r t i e ' s testimony indicated t h a t David tended t o p r o c r a s t i n a t e i n signing up f o r government programs which would b e n e f i t t h e farm and t h a t he w a s incapable of maintaining t h e farm by himself. When t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was confronted with t h e preceding f a c t s , it found t h a t t h e e n t i r e investment of t h e p a r t i e s w a s i n serious jeopardy and t h e r e was a d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t both p a r t i e s could l o s e everything, i f p o s i t i v e a c t i o n was not taken. Certainly, t h e c o u r t ' s a c t i o n cannot be labeled a s "Arbitrary" o r "exceeding t h e bounds of reason" a s contemplated by Porter. I n Latus v. Latus, 163 Mont. 315, 517 P.2d 356, 30 S t . Rep. 1 1 2 1 , a divorce a c t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ordered t h e hus- band t o e i t h e r sell t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t l y owned house and give t h e wife one-half of t h e proceeds o r t o pay t h e wife $10,000 a s her i n t e r e s t i n t h e house. This Court affirmed t h i s e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n . I n essence, t h e same s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s i n t h e i n s t a n t case. David has been ordered t o s e l l t h e farm. However, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n its conclusion of law I V provided him with t h i s option : "Should e i t h e r of t h e p a r t i e s choose t o pur- chase t h e property, e i t h e r party s h a l l have t h e option t o meet any and a l l bids and terms of t h e s a l e , but t h e p a r t y must exceed e i t h e r of t h e o t h e r p a r t y ' s bid * * *." Finding no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n , t h e judgment of t h e d i s - t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed. J u s t i c e W e concur: ' I . " " r e : -" U,; 3 , - &,4hd-'*~ , u , , , , , - - - - - - - ..~~&..-2*. ' - - A Chief J u s t i c e , . $ --*~--~-Z-----L-~----'-A.-----&- J u s t i c e s