Title: MARRIAGE OF GOODMUNDSON
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-433
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 23, 1982

No. 8 1 - 4 3 3 I N T I E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE: OF MOIJTANA 1 9 8 2 I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF PE-IYLLIS M. GOODI4UNDSON, P e t i t i o n e r a n d R e s p o n d e n t , DARRELL D. GOODMUNDSGN, R e s 2 o n d e n t a n d ilppellant. A p g e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e ? J i n t l i J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of T e t o n , T h e H o n o r a b l e Joel G. R o t h , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : A l e x a n d e r & E a u c u s , G r e a t F a l l s , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t : C o n n e r , B a i z & O l s o n , G r e a t Falls, Montana F i l e d : S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : O c t o b e r 2 6 , 1 9 8 2 D e c i d e d : D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 1 9 8 2 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . The husband a p p e a l s from judgment i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l District , Cascade County, d i s tri- b u t i n g t h e marital p r o p e r t y of t h e p a r t i e s . The husband claims t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d to e x e r c i s e independent judgment by a d o p t i n g most of t h e w i f e ' s proposed f i n d i n g s . Because t h e D i s t r i c t Court 's judgment is supported by t h e r e c o r d , w e cannot s a y t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n . The judgment is af f irmed . The p a r t i e s were married on O c t o b e r 3 , 1954. The m a r r i a g e was d i s s o l v e d F e b r u a r y 23, 1981. Throughout t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e husband h a s worked as a d r y l a n d g r a i n farmer i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h h i s f a t h e r . The p a r t n e r s h i p farmed about 2,480 a c r e s a t t h e t i m e t h e w i f e p e t i t i o n e d f o r d i s s o l u t i o n . The 2,480 a c r e s are farmed as one u n i t d e s p i t e s e p a r a t e titles. The husband h a s 325 acres i n h i s name, h i s p a r e n t s have 640 acres i n t h e i r names, t h e hus- band and f a t h e r own 1 , 0 4 3 a c r e s j o i n t l y , and t h e p a r t n e r s h i p leases about 480 acres. The w i f e h a s worked p a r t - t i m e , o f f and o n , through t h e m a r r i a g e . She h a s worked as a l i b r a r i a n and a p a r t - t i m e m a i l carrier. The District Court made e x t e n s i v e f i n d i n g s , breaking down t h e v a l u e of t i l l a b l e l a n d , t h e l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e p a r t i e s , improve- ments to t h e l a n d , an averaged v a l u e on t h e f a m i l y home, two l o n g lists of farm p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y and nonfarm p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t h e amount and v a l u e of s t o r e d g r a i n , an e s t i m a t e of growing c r o p s , t o t a l l i a b i l i t i e s f o r t h e marital estate, and f i n a l l y total assets f o r t h e marital estate. Most of t h e s e f i n d - i n g s are t a k e n from t h e v a l u e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e w i f e ' s proposed f i n d i n g s . The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t a d o p t t h e w i f e ' s proposed f i n d i n g s i n t w o i n s t a n c e s : of t h e f a m i l y home was n o t included i n t h e marital e s t a t e ; and t h e v a l u e of t h e 480 acre lease was l i s t e d as z e r o . The o r i g i n a l judgment of t h e District Court w a s amended to c o r r e c t some mathematical errors and a l t e r some v a l u e s a t t h e s u g g e s t i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s . The husband a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o e x e r c i s e independent judgment by a c c e p t i n g most of t h e w i f e ' s proposed f i n d i n g s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e husband claims t h e District C o u r t e r r e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g v a l u a t i o n s : 1) t h e t i l l a b l e farmland v a l u a t i o n of $650 is n o t supported by t h e testimony of e i t h e r of t h e a p p r a i s e r s ; 2) t h e District Court f a i l e d to con- s i d e r t h e w i f e 's i n h e r i t a n c e and i m p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e husband s expected i n h e r i t a n c e ; 3 ) t h e District Court should have p l a c e d t h e e n t i r e v a l u e of t h e N i l e s P l a c e i n p r e - m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y ; 4 ) a n o l d wooden g r a i n b i n was improperly valued a t $1,200; 5 ) t h e District Court i l l o g i c a l l y averaged t w o a p p r a i s e d v a l u e s to a r r i v e a t t h e v a l u e of t h e f a m i l y home; 6 ) t h e v a l u e s of t h e shop t o o l s and wheat s p r a y e r s are not supported by t h e r e c o r d ; 7 ) t h e v a l u e s of t h e s i l v e r s e r v i c e and c o i n set were i m p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d ; 8 ) t h e $23 , 000 withdrawn by t h e husband from a j o i n t s a v i n g s account was improperly used t o o f f s e t t h e v a l u e of p r e - m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y ; 9 ) t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n e s t i m a t i n g t h e amount of g r a i n s t o r e d i n g r a i n b i n s ; 1 0 ) some of t h e l a n d l o r d ' s g r a i n was improperly included as a marital asset; 11) t h e District Court e r r o n e o u s l y p r o j e c t e d t h e v a l u e of t h e 1981 g r a i n crop; and 1 2 ) a c l e r i c a l error was n o t changed i n t h a t t h e $12,000 v a l u e p l a c e d on farm improvements s h o u l d read $12,100. The w i f e claims t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s are supported by t h e r e c o r d . W e a g r e e . The s t a n d a r d f o r review of f i n d i n g s made by a District Court is t h e same whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court prepared t h e f i n d i n g s or adopted a p a r t y ' s proposed f i n d i n g s . I n re t h e Marriage of LeProwse ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont . -. -- . , 646 P.2d 526, 39 St.Rep. 1053. The error i n a d o p t i n g proposed f i n d i n g s is more an e t h i c a l t h a n a l e g a l b r e a c h . E r r o r o c c u r s when t h e proposed f i n d i n g s are r e l i e d upon to t h e e x c l u s i o n of t h e p r o p e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of f a c t s and t h e e x e r c i s e of independent judgment. I n re t h e Marriage of Hunter ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont . - - , 369 P.2d 489, 39 St.Rep. 59. Here, t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s c o n s c i e n t i o u s concern and par- t i c i p a t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The test i n reviewing t h e f i n d i n g s , t h e n , is whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n . T h a t is, whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court 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 i n view of a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Cranmore v. Cranmore (1982 ) , - Mont . I -- 649 P.2d 441, 39 St.Rep. 1361; Converse v. Converse ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont . --- --- , 645 P.2d 413, 39 St.Rep. 887. I n a d o p t i n g proposed v a l u e s or i n s e t t i n g its own, t h e D i s t r i c t Court is f r e e i n its d i s c r e t i o n to adopt t h e recommen- d a t i o n of a p a r t y or a layman o v e r t h a t of an e x p e r t . Dickerson v . Dickerson ( 1980 ) , - Mont . - - , 614 P.2d 521, 37 St.Rep. 1286. A l s o , t h e D i s t r i c t Court may a v e r a g e t h e v a l u e s g i v e n by e x p e r t s t o a r r i v e a t an e q u i t a b l e s o l u t i o n . Converse, s u p r a ; I n R e t h e Marriage of J e n s e n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -- Mont . , 6 3 1 P.2d 700, 38 St.Rep. 1109. Here, t h e D i s t r i c t Court adopted some f i n d i n g s supported by t h e w i f e ' s v a l u a t i o n s , some f i n d i n g s t h a t were a v e r a g e s of v a l u e s set by e x p e r t s , and some f i n d i n g s based on t h e husband's testi- mony and t h a t of h i s a p p r a i s e r s . The husband claims t h i s is i l l o g i c a l and i n c o n s i s t e n t , and t h e o n l y way t h e D i s t r i c t Court c o u l d have a r r i v e d a t such f i n d i n g s is by b l i n d l y f o l l o w i n g t h e w i f e ' s proposed f i n d i n g s . W e d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e husband s i m p l y because t h e f i n d i n g s are s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e and t h a t is t h e d e t e r m i n a t i v e test. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e record s u p p o r t s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d - i n g s t h a t t h e t i l l a b l e a c r e a g e is worth $650 p e r acre. Two local landowners t e s t i f i e d t h a t they knew of r e c e n t sales where similar land was s o l d f o r o v e r $700 p e r acre. The wife t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d t h e land was worth $700 p e r acre. While t h e t w o a p p r a i s e r s valued t h e land a t $600 and $625 p e r a c r e , t h e District Court was w i t h i n its d i s c r e t i o n not to a c c e p t t h e s e v a l u e s . Dickerson, s u p r a . Moreover, one a p p r a i s e r acknowledged t h a t t h e range i n v a l u e w a s from $621 t o $743 p e r acre. The $650 v a l u e is t h e r e f o r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . The husband claims n e x t t h a t t h e District Court f a i l e d to c o n s i d e r t h e w i f e ' s i n h e r i t a n c e , and also, t h e n i m p r o p e r l y i n c l u d e d t h e husband's e x p e c t a t i o n of an i n h e r i t a n c e . The r e c o r d s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e wife s p e n t a l l $20,000 o f h e r i n h e r i t a n c e r e c e i v e d i n 1975. She bought a car f o r h e r d a u g h t e r , a car f o r h e r s e l f , r e c a r p e t e d t h e f a m i l y home, and b u i l t a f e n c e . Under s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, t h e D i s t r i c t Court must c o n s i d e r f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of assets. The husband's e x p e c t a t i o n of a s i z e a b l e i n h e r i t a n c e is t h e r e f o r e a v a l i d c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e marital p r o p e r t y . The husband claims a l l of t h e purchase p r i c e of a p a r c e l of l a n d , t h e N i l e s P l a c e , should be p r e - m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . While t h e husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t he thought h i s f a t h e r had purchased t h e l a n d p r i o r to h i s m a r r i a g e ; t h e deed f o r t h e land was n o t r e c o r d e d u n t i l a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d . The District C o u r t t h e r e f o r e r e a s o n a b l y concluded t h a t o n l y t h e down-payment on t h e land w a s p r e - m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . The w i f e ' s a p p r a i s e r set a $1,200 v a l u e on an o l d wooden g r a i n b i n . T h i s v a l u e is t h e r e f o r e supported by r e c o r d , r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h e husband d i s a g r e e s w i t h t h i s f i g u r e . L i k e w i s e , t h e w i f e ' s a p p r a i s e r set t h e v a l u e s f o r t h e s i l v e r set and t h e c o i n c o l l e c t i o n . The D i s t r i c t Court also a c t e d w i t h i n its d i s c r e t i o n i n esti- mating t h e amount of g r a i n i n t h e marital estate. These esti- mates seem t o be b a s e d , i n p a r t , on t h o s e made by t h e husband h i m s e l f . Because t h e husband I s t e s t i m o n y w a s con£ u s i n g and c o n t r a d i c t o r y as t o whether t h e l a n d l o r d owned p a r t of t h e g r a i n i n one b i n , t h e District Court could r e a s o n a b l y conclude t h e g r a i n was p r o p e r l y w i t h i n t h e marital estate. The r e c o r d a l s o s u p p o r t s t h e District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e money t h e husband withdrew from a s a v i n g s a c c o u n t owned j o i n t l y w i t h t h e w i f e , was marital p r o p e r t y . The money was i n t h e j o i n t account and n o t i n t h e s e p a r a t e farm a c c o u n t . A l s o , t h e money was withdrawn immediately a£ ter t h e wife p e t i t i o n e d f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e m a r r i a g e . The p r o j e c t e d v a l u e of t h e 1981 growing c r o p is also based on s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e . The District Court had i n e v i d e n c e t h e f a r m ' s income t a x r e t u r n s f o r t h e p a s t f o u r y e a r s , t h e e s t i m a t e d e x p e n s e s , t h e e s t i m a t e d a c r e a g e p l a n t e d , and t h e e s t i m a t e d v a l u e of t h e c r o p s . Except f o r t h e admitted clerical error i n t h e v a l u a t i o n of t h e farm improvements, t h e v a l u e s used by t h e District Court are s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . The $100 error i n t h e farm improve- ments v a l u a t i o n is n o t of enough s i g n i f i c a n c e to w a r r a n t amending t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n d e c r e e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgm ,i-" W e concur: