Court Opinion

ID: 9573642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:57:24.058334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:42:15.475385
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON:
I dissent.
It has been the established law in this state since the cases, of Emery v. Emery, 122 Mont. 201, 224, 200 Pac. (2d) 251, and Shaw v. Shaw, 122 Mont. 593, 613, 208 Pac. (2d) 514, that a district court has no power to adjudicate the property rights of the parties to a divorce action, for the reason that the statutes, which are the source of jurisdiction, confer no such power.
In 27B C.J.S., Divorce, section 291(1), page 260, it is said:
“It is generally held that the authority of the court, in suits for divorce, to transfer the property of either spouse to the other, or otherwise to dispose of it, is purely statutory and that in the absence of such statutory authority a court has no power in divorce proceedings to deal with the property rights of the spouses.”
The majority attempts to distinguish the case at bar from the Emery and Shaw cases, but such cannot be done. What is involved is the power of a district court in divorce proceedings. In Emery v. Emery, supra, 122 Mont. at page 224, 200 Pac. (2d) at page 264, it was said:
“In Cox v. Cox, 266 App. Div. 38, 43 N.Y.S. (2d) 707, 708, the court said, £* * * we find no statute or judicial decision that would warrant the adjudication of a real property right in a matrimonial action.’ Beals v. Ares, 25 N.M. 459, 185 Pac. 780, 791, holds that absent a statute so providing the court is without power upon decreeing a divorce, to transfer to the wife a portion of the property of the husband.”
If the district courts had no power to adjudicate property interests in the Emery and Shaw eases, it cannot be done here. It is but a fiction to say that the court is not actually divesting the husband of property and transferring it to the wife but is actually giving- the wife that which is already hers. This *19was urged in the dissents to both the Emery and Shaw cases by the writer of the majority opinion here.
In order to sustain the district court’s award of $1,600 to the defendant herein, and yet remain consistent, this court should overrule Emery v. Emery, supra, and Shaw v. Shaw, supra.
The writer of the majority opinion seemed to concede in his dissent to Shaw v. Shaw, supra, that under the rule laid down in Emery v. Emery, supra, the court cannot in a divorce action adjudicate the property rights of a wife in property standing in the name of the husband to which she contributed. In Shaw v. Shaw, 122 Mont. at page 619, 208 Pac. (2d) at page 528, he stated:
“I concede that under Emery v. Emery, 122 Mont. 201, 200 Pac. (2d) 251, if the husband manages to get property in his own name even though purchased with the wife’s money, there is not much the court can do about it. I did not agree with the majority opinion in the Emery case. I think it is unsound in law and establishes a rule lacking in fairness and justice. I hesitate to concur in that part of the majority opinion in this case which follows the Emery case, even on the ground of stare decisis and without making an effort to have it now overruled. I think we should overrule it expressly at this time.”
Unless the cases of Emery v. Emery, supra, and Shaw v. Shaw, supra, are expressly overruled, it is my opinion that the judgment below in favor of the defendant wife should be reversed.