Opinion ID: 2520443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Dry Farm Property

Text: [¶12] The dispute in the instant case focuses on the district court's disposition of real property known as the dry farm. Historically, the husband's family owned and operated a 203-acre farm and/or ranch near Thayne, Wyoming, and the husband purchased the property in 1968. In 1990, the husband sold a 150-acre portion of the property known as the dry farm to Ray Johnston, apparently to satisfy a judgment resulting from the husband's divorce from a previous wife. [7] [¶13] The husband testified that as early as 1993, he discussed the possibility of selling a twenty-acre parcel of his property to the local school district, and re-acquiring a portion of the dry farm property from Ray Johnston. [8] Six or seven months after the husband and wife were married, a Section 1031 exchange was finalized, wherein the school district acquired the twenty-acre parcel from husband and husband used the proceeds to re-acquire two parcels (totaling forty-eight acres) of the dry farm property from Ray Johnston for $143,414.00. The wife testified that the husband discussed the negotiations with her, but she did not contribute money to the transaction and was not formally involved in the negotiations. [¶14] Apparently, the two parcels acquired in this exchange were deeded to Jim W. Stoker and Tina Stoker, husband and wife, as tenants by the entireties. The wife testified that her name was included in the deeds because the seller executed the deeds as suchit happened because [w]e were marriedand the wife was never asked to enter a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement regarding the property. The husband also testified that the seller included the wife's name on the deeds essentially because I was married to her for, like, six months, and the husband had not requested that the seller exclude the wife's name from the deeds. According to the husband, he and the wife never talked about the wife's interest in the property prior to the marriage, and there was no agreement prior to, or after, the marriage that the wife would not have an interest in the property. [¶15] The husband testified that he trained horses for a couple years on the forty-eight-acre dry farm property and also leased it to another individual on shares of hay for a couple years in order to feed husband's horses. The wife testified that during the marriage, she would ask if the husband needed any help on the dry farm property and run errands or bring him things or help him fix things on the land, [9] and that she contributed toward keeping the dry farm property as marital property. At some point, the wife discovered a tax notice regarding the dry farm property. The property had apparently been sold because of delinquent property taxes in July 1998, and the wife's parents redeemed the property in January 1999 by paying $104.25 in property taxes. The wife testified that the husband previously had the same problem . . .. The wife's parents proceeded to pay the property taxes on the dry farm property from 1999 to November 2003. [¶16] The district court conducted a hearing regarding the disposition of the forty-eight-acre dry farm property in December 2003. [10] The parties stipulated that at that time, the property was valued at $240,000.00 to $340,000.00. At the hearing, the district court ruled from the bench, finding that the husband has land but not much money, and as follows: Actually, it boils down to this. In terms of where I look at it from the starting point is was there a gift intended when Tina's name was put on the property? The property was titled such at that time. The Court takes note of the following factors: Mr. Stoker had knowledge from prior marriages and  or at least there was evidence of it. . . . He has children from prior marriages but he set the thing up in 1996 to where if Tina survived him, his other children would be disinherited because it was a tenancy by the entirety and everything would have gone to her. Now, that's a significant legal fact in the Court's mind. In terms of  obviously, you know, they lived together for two years, evidently, trying to decide if they could make it and then they got married. And it's true. Jim provided at least from  essentially, at the time they got married, he had his home and the property that was sold to the school district and that was basically it, plus probably some horses and tack and farm equipment. He sold the school district property and used the proceeds to get the dry farm property. This dry farm property, that occurred at that point in time and he put her name on it. So, you know, the one thing  and these cases are instructive that have been provided. The law presumes a gift, you know, if there was no evidence that it was otherwise. And there really was no testimony as to why her name was put on it, so that presumption remains. And then I look at the background facts on the thing and that and it could have easily been put in his name or otherwise. So we're  the starting point is if there's a presumption of that. Now, I go into it and look at it from the standpoint of, okay, what are the equities? We've got this property here that's essentially 50/50. It looks like, first of all, out of the whole thing, the home property has gone back to Jim. He's got that free and clear. Secondly, the thing that I look at in the course of the marriage is while you have these things and people have their faults  and that may be why the other person loves them, is because of their faults. It makes them  You know, so to tell you the truth, I don't look at it, maybe, as harshly as clients and Counsel wish I would because we all have our shortcomings. But this is essentially what it appears to me, based on what's gone on. I mean, shortly after they were married, they started having financial problems on this loan on the home. It's pretty clear that Tina was the worrier, was the person who tried making sure that there was  the bills were paid; there was heat in the house; there was food on the table. She worked forty hours a week to do that, which is a full-time job. It may not be the most money, but she did the best she could. Jim, on the other hand, he worked full-time in the horse racing game and he's good at that and everything but evidently from the testimony here, it doesn't really return much money. . . . But it may be that one of the things that attracted Tina to Jim is that she worried about things and took care of those details and that's the kind of wife he wanted. The other equity, I guess, the main thing that I look at is he did keep these children, her children, while she was not receiving any child support. But on the other hand, probably the cost of upkeep was primarily paid for through Tina's income. So it doesn't come out all that great for Jim. Mainly, he used his income that he received from the dry farm, he took the income from the dry farm and what he got from his horse racing and training and, apparently, plowed that back into his occupation as a trainer of the horses. So in terms of it all, as I look at it, Jim's got his home back. He's still got the situation with regard to the . . . dry farm property. I'm here, looking at it from the standpoint of, okay, what equities do we have to offset that? Quite frankly, in terms of the traditional function of trying to keep a home together and everything else, the equities go in favor of Tina. There could be an argument that she should be awarded more than half, if we start out from the premise that she had half given to her, but I'm not going to do that. I am awarding her half of the property. . . . But given where we are, this is one of these things, Jim, that I don't know what else I can do. You know, your case is basically that you made a fool's bargain when you made that deed. And I understand where it's at, but those are significant acts. And once that's done, the only thing I'm doing is looking at the equities to try to divide it up any other way, to depart from that, and I've already explained that. [¶17] The district court subsequently entered a formal decree in February 2004, in which decree it additionally found as follows: 1. Wife contributed to the marriage through payment of household expenses, utilities and arranging for payment of other debts during the course of the marriage, and husband contributed to the marriage through payment of some marital expenses and providing a home for [wife] and her children; and 2. Husband did not produce sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that [husband] intended to give a fifty percent interest in the dry farm property to wife. [¶18] Rather than granting the wife an actual interest in the property, the district court awarded the wife a $170,000.00 money judgment equivalent to one-half of the property's stipulated value. [11] The decree provided that if the money judgment is not paid by a date certain, the property is to be appraised and sold; if the property is appraised and sold for less than $340,000.00, the wife will receive one-half of the sale proceeds and if the property is appraised and sold for more than $340,000.00, the wife will receive the judgment amount (plus interest). The husband now appeals the district court's disposition of the dry farm property.