Title: MARRIAGE OF CREON
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-056
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 9, 1981

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 c o u r t valued and d i s t r i b u t e d t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e par- ties as f o l l o w s : TO t h e Wife: Farm P r o p e r t y , Lincoln Co. $ 65,900.00 R e s i d e n c e , 211 Nevada 12,000.00 John Deere T r a c t o r 4,500.00 Mower, C o n d i t i o n e r 1,800.00 B a i l e r 100.00 1 2 ' John Deere Plow 500.00 B a i l e r , E l e v a t o r 65.00 Truck Snow Plow 500.00 S t . Regis S t o c k , e x c e p t "Bonus Stock" 3,000.00 1 9 7 1 C h r y s l e r 250.00 1 5 Head L i v e s t o c k 5,000.00 TOTAL $ 93,615-00 To t h e Husband: MC-40 Crawler M. M. Tractor 2 Farm T r a c t o r s C a r p e n t r y and Mechanics Tools Boat Motors, Chain Saws, etc. 1977 Dodge Truck 1970 C h r y s l e r 1940 Dodge Truck 1937 C h r y s l e r I m p e r i a l 5 t h Wheel T r a i l e r Misc. * , Antique Outboard Motors, 32/20 P i s t o l , 3 Cameras, Oak T a b l e and D i s t i n c t l y P e r s o n a l Items TOTAL $15,275.00 The c o u r t made t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y i n l i e u of main- t e n a n c e and o r d e r e d t h a t each p a r t y be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s own a t t o r n e y f e e s . On a p p e a l t h e husband r a i s e d t h e i s s u e of whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e marital p r o p e r t y and whether t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t are s u p p o r t e d by suf- f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e husband c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y is i n e q u i t a b l e and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d to t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n h i s s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h e s u p p o r t o f h i s f a m i l y and improvements to t h e p r o p e r t y . The husband also m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e v a l u a t i o n of c e r t a i n items of M r . Chief ~ u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The m a r r i a g e of t h e p a r t i e s was d i s s o l v e d by d e c r e e e n t e r e d December 31, 1979. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of p r o p e r t y d i v i - s i o n , maintenance and a t t o r n e y f e e s was r e s e w e d f o r a h e a r i n g which was h e l d on J u l y 1 4 and 17, 1980. The D i s t r i c t Court of L i n c o l n County e n t e r e d its f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and judgment on October 8 , 1980. The husband a p p e a l s from t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a common l a w m a r r i a g e commencing i n 1951 a f t e r t h e husband o b t a i n e d a d i s s o l u t i o n of a p r i o r m a r r i a g e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e p a r t i e s d a t e s from 1947. They have r a i s e d one c h i l d who w a s an a d u l t a t t i m e of t r i a l . The wife a c q u i r e d a r e s i d e n c e i n Libby, Montana, d u r i n g h e r p r i o r m a r r i a g e which was d i s s o l v e d i n 1947. I n 1949, a farm of 79 acres was purchased f o r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of $5,000. The deed is d a t e d June 23, 1949 and is to "Eleanor A. Huffman, s i n g l e woman of Libby, Montana." During t h e m a r r i a g e t h e p a r t i e s r e s i d e d on t h e farm and b o t h worked on it and c o n t r i b u t e d to it. I n 1971 t h e husband bought a t r a i l e r house i n Libby and p r i m a r i l y 1 ived t h e r e t h e r e a f t e r . During t h e m a r r i a g e t h e husband w a s employed a t S t . Regis Lumber Company, f o r m e r l y J. N e i l s Lumber Company. H e r e t i r e d i n 1980 and r e c e i v e s a pension of $596 p e r month and S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s of $519 p e r month. The husband devoted h i s wages d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e t o t h e s u p p o r t of t h e f a m i l y and t o improvements on t h e farm and t h e house i n Libby. S i n c e 1978 t h e wife h a s sup- p o r t e d h e r s e l f by o c c a s i o n a l employment, sale of t i m b e r from t h e farm and r a i s i n g cattle on t h e farm. She r e c e i v e s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $300 p e r month, and r e n t from t h e house i n Libby of $100 p e r month. The c o u r t found she could e x p e c t a n income of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $3,000 to $5,000 from t h e farm. The wife t e s t i f i e d s h e d e s i r e d to s t a y on t h e farm and make it prof i t a b l e . The husband had no d e s i r e to keep t h e farm, b u t wanted it s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d . p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y is i n error. I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n , t h e reviewing c o u r t does n o t s u b s t i t u t e its judgment f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The s t a n d a r d f o r review is whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y w i t h o u t employment of conscien- t i o u s judgment or exceeded t h e bounds of r e a s o n 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 . See I n re t h e Marriage of S t r a t f o r d (1981) 1 Mont . , 6 3 1 P.2d 296, 38 St.Rep. 1093; Zell v. Zell ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 33. The ~ i s t r i c t Court e x e r c i s e d reasoned judgment i n d i v i d i n g t h e p r o p e r t y as set f o r t h above, t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e f a c t o r s i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. The husband h a s an i n c a n e of $13,380 p e r y e a r , w h i l e t h e wife r e c e i v e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $7,200 p e r y e a r from v a r i o u s s o u r c e s i n c l u d i n g t h e farm. The D i s t r i c t Court reasoned t h a t an award of t h e farm to t h e wife would e n a b l e h e r t o meet h e r expenses w i t h o u t maintenance from t h e husband. The District Court w a s w e l l aware of t h e d e b t s of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e encumbrances on t h e p r o p e r t y awarded t o each. Without t h e farm and t h e income, however small, t h a t it p r o v i d e s f o r t h e w i f e , s h e c o u l d n o t s u p p o r t h e r s e l f . The improvements on t h e farm are s u b s t a n t i a l l y d e t e r i o r a t e d and t h e land is n o t s u i t a b l e f o r development. N o s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e r e s u l t e d by t h e award of t h e farm t o t h e w i f e . The husband c o n t e s t s t h e v a l u a t i o n g i v e n by t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t to t h e f i f t h wheel trailer, t h e 1977 Dodge t r u c k and t h e t o o l s . The husband would v a l u e t h e t r a i l e r a t $0 due to a $5,500 encumbrance, t h e Dodge t r u c k a t $1,500 and t h e tools a t $400. The t r i a l c o u r t c l e a r l y d i d c o n s i d e r t h e o u t s t a n d i n g d e b t s s e c u r e d by t h e trailer and Dodge t r u c k . F u r t h e r , t h e husband p r e s e n t e d no v a l u a t i o n of t h e Dodge t r u c k to t h e c o u r t below and he may n o t on a p p e a l assert a f i g u r e n o t g i v e n f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The v a l u e a s s i g n e d to t h e t r u c k is r e a s o n a b l e . The w i f e valued t h e tools a t $3,000 and t h e husband d i s a g r e e d . The District Court a s trier of f a c t decided to a c c e p t t h e w i f e ' s v a l u a t i o n as t o t h e tools, and t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l s t a n d u n l e s s it is c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. W e f i n d no error. The t r i a l c o u r t accepted t h e husband's v a l u a t i o n s of s e v e r a l o t h e r items of p r o p e r t y i n l i e u of t h e w i f e ' s lower e s t i m a t e s . These d e c i s i o n s are l e f t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t l s j udgmen t . Af f irmed . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: