Marriage of Sell ( 1981 )

No. 81-42
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
LARRY KENNETH SELL,
Petitioner and Respondent,
and
CAROL JEAN SELL,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and for the County of Flathead
Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Darrell S. Worm, Montana Legal Services, Kalispell, Montana
For Respondent:
Patrick M. Springer, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on briefs: May 15, 1981
Decided: ' JIII~~~S~O
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
The Flathead County District Court entered a decree
of dissolution following a petition by husband, Larry K.
Sell, and a trial without a jury. Carol Jean Sell,
respondent and appellant, appeals from provisions of that
decree relating to the distribution of marital assets.
The parties were married from July 20, 1971, until
the dissolution of the marriage on May 9, 1980. They had
one child who was eight years old at the time of
dissolution. From 1971 to 1980 there were several
separations of unknown duration, but the final separation
occurred in July 1979.
Petitioner-respondent is employed by the Anaconda
Copper Company with take-home wages of about $1,200 a month.
The wife was working as a motel maid at the time of the
dissolution and has had experience working as a licensed
practical nurse.
The major marital asset is a home purchased by the
parties in December 1976, after they had been separated for
several months. At the time of purchase, the appellant
contributed $1,000 to the downpayment, and the husband
contributed $850. The wife's contribution was from a sale
of her former home.
The parties lived in the home from December 1976
until July 1980. When they moved into the home it was
unfinished. For three years they made substantial
improvements to the home, most of the work being done by the
husband. The materials used to make the improvements came
to approximately $5,500. Petitioner testified that he
devoted at least 1,500 hours in labor to make the
improvements. In addition, he was a s s i s t e d by h i s f a t h e r
who d i d n o t g e t any c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r h i s work. There is
sharp disagreement over the extent t o which the appellant
assisted in the improvements. S h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e had
worked about one-half as much as her husband, while he
claims she helped very little. The parties eventually
planned t o sell the house and p u r c h a s e a bigger piece of
property .
Due t o t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s p l u s a g e n e r a l i n f l a t i o n i n
property values in the area, the property increased in
v a l u e from t h e o r i g i n a l p u r c h a s e p r i c e o f $ 2 8 , 0 0 0 t o a v a l u e
s e t by t h e t r i a l j u d g e a t $ 5 5 , 0 0 0 . T h i s p r i c e was a g r e e d
upon by b o t h p a r t i e s . The n e t v a l u e o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e ,
d e t e r m i n e d by s u b t r a c t i n g t h e v a l u e o f o t h e r d e b t s f r o m t h e
e s t a t e , is $21,000.
The m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o d i s t r i b u t i o n by t h e
D i s t r i c t Court c o n s i s t s of t h e following: t h e f a m i l y home,
$ 5 5 , 0 0 0 ; p r o c e e d s from t h e s a l e o f a 1 9 7 6 Vega, $ 1 , 5 0 0 ; and,
a V e n t u r a camper, $1,500. The t o t a l a s s e t s t h e r e f o r e were
valued a t $58,000. Debts of the marital estate, owing on
the house and other debts consolidated into home
r e f i n a n c i n g , were $ 3 4 , 0 0 0 , l e a v i n g $ 2 4 , 0 0 0 i n n e t a s s e t s .
Two i s s u e s a r e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t : ( 1 ) Does t h i s C o u r t
h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a p p e a l ; and ( 2 ) d i d t h e D i s t r i c t
Court abuse its discretion in apportioning the marital
p r o p e r t y of t h e p a r t i e s ?
The f i r s t i s s u e stems from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r
entered on September 12, 1980. The order modified the
f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w more t h a n f i f t e e n
days a f t e r submission of a p p e l l a n t ' s p o s t - t r i a l motions. By
e x c e e d i n g t h e t i m e p e r i o d mandated by R u l e 5 9 , M.R.Civ.P.,
the District Court divested itself of jurisdiction to
d e t e r m i n e t h e m o t i o n , and i t s o r d e r was a n u l l i t y . Marvel
Brute S t e e l Building, I n c . v. Bass ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. I
616 P.2d 380, 37 St.Rep. 1670. The original notice of
appeal from the second decree, based on that order, was
untimely under Rule 5, M.R.Civ.P., and we have no
j u r i s d i c t i o n a s t o t h e second d e c r e e . See P r i c e v . Zunchich
(1980)~ Mont. , 612 P.2d 1 2 9 6 , 37 S t . R e p . 1058.
Appellant argues that this defect is c u r e d by the
a p p e l l a n t having lodged an a p p e a l t o t h e f i r s t d e c r e e . We
agree. The n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h e f i r s t d e c r e e was f i l e d
long after its entry. However, the clerk of court
i n a d v e r t e n t l y f a i l e d t o f i l e and s e r v e t h e n o t i c e o f e n t r y
of judgment o f t h e f i r s t d e c r e e . S i n c e t h e r e was no d a t e t o
begin the time for n o t i c e of t h e a p p e a l t o be filed, the
n o t i c e was n o t u n t i m e l y . The t i m e t o a p p e a l , t h e r e f o r e , d i d
not expire, and R u l e 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., was n o t v i o l a t e d .
T h i s C o u r t c a n assume j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a p p e a l . Haywood
v . S e d i l l o ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 7 Mont. 1 0 1 , 535 P.2d 1014.
The f i r s t and s e c o n d d e c r e e s d i d not vary substan-
tially, and the reasons for the appeal were identical.
Respondent is n o t p r e j u d i c e d by a s u r p r i s i n g s h i f t i n t h e
s u b s t a n t i v e n a t u r e of t h e a p p e a l .
We now turn our attention to the main issue on
appeal, whether there was an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by the
D i s t r i c t Court i n apportioning t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s .
Appellant recognizes that the District Courts have
b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n u n d e r Montana l a w i n d i s t r i b u t i n g m a r i t a l
p r o p e r t y b u t a r g u e s t h a t t h i s d i s c r e t i o n i s n o t unbounded.
She a r g u e s t h a t under s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, the District
C o u r t c a n n o t a c t a r b i t r a r i l y and m u s t c o n s i d e r a l l c r i t e r i a
under the statute so that t h e r e w i l l be a j u s t , equitable
and r e a s o n a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n . This Court has a l i m i t e d scope
o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w and w i l l n o t i n t e r v e n e e x c e p t when t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s d e p a r t e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y f r o m t h e norms o f
equity. I n Re M a r r i a g e o f H e r r o n (1980), Mont. I
608 P.2d 97, 37 S t . R e p . 387; In Re Marriage of Jacobson
(1979)I Mont . , 600 P.2d 1183, 36 S t . R e p . 1773.
Appellant here alleges that the District Court departed
s u b s t a n t i a l l y from t h e norms o f e q u i t y and a s k s t h a t t h i s
Court intervene.
In In Re Marriage of Berthiaume (1977), 1 7 3 Mont.
421, 567 P.2d 1 3 8 8 , r e l y i n g on P o r t e r v . P o r t e r ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 5
Mont. 451, 473 P.2d 538, we s e t t h e s t a n d a r d o f review on
appeal in cases involving claims that the District Court
abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . T h e s e r e a s o n a b l e and u n d e r s t a n d a b l e
g u i d e l i n e s were f o l l o w e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . There is
nothing "arbitrary" in the District Court's determination,
and we f i n d no e r r o r .
T h e r e was no q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
t h e bulk of personal property of t h e p a r t i e s nor w i t h t h e
c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d . The o n l y q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n s t h e h o u s e .
The v a l u e s o f t h e h o u s e , t h e c a r and t h e camper w e r e a g r e e d
t o by s t i p u l a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t t a k e s no i s s u e w i t h t h e v a l u e
of t h e c a r o r t h e camper, and f o r a l l i n t e n t s and p u r p o s e s
is s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e g r a n t t o h e r o f t h e balance of her
downpayment on t h e h o u s e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i v i s i o n o f
t h e h o u s e , t h e r e m a i n i n g a s s e t , on o t h e r t h a n a 50-50 basis
i s c l a i ' m e d a s e r r o r by a p p e l l a n t .
T h i s C o u r t i n I n Re M a r r i a g e of Aanenson ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
Mont . , 598 P.2d 1 1 2 0 , 36 S t . R e p . 1525, noted:
" A 1 t h o u g h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t may e q u a l l y
divide the marital assets, such a
d i s t r i b u t i o n i s n o t mandated by s e c t i o n 40-4-
202, MCA. S e e Kuntz v . Kuntz ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont.,
5 9 3 P . 2 d 4 1 , 36 S t . R e p . 662. Section
40-4-202 i s f l e x i b l e and i t v e s t s a good d e a l
of d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. I n Re
M a r r i a g e o f J o r g e n s e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont., 590 P.2d
6 0 6 , 609, 36 S t . R e p . 233, 237. W have
e
s t a t e d , b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e
s t a t u t e , t h a t e a c h c a s e must be looked a t
individually, with an eye t o its unique
circumstances. J o r g e n s e n , 590 P.2d a t 609;
Cook v . Cook ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 9 8 , 495 P.2d
591. "
The record here indicates that the District Court
made e v e r y e f f o r t t o comply w i t h a l l p r e v i o u s p r o n o u n c e m e n t s
in marital cases. By i t s p r e t r i a l o r d e r d a t e d J u n e 1980,
the District Court specifically directed the parties to
submit information concerning:
"a. The n e t w o r t h o f t h e p a r t i e s a s o f t h e
f i l i n g of t h e C o m p l a i n t .
"b. Any p r o p e r t y e i t h e r c l a i m e d by r i g h t of
inheritance or other q u a l i f i e d contribution.
.
I 1 c A l l p r o p e r t y t h a t is s u b j e c t t o
distribution, including the values thereof.
"d. The manner i n which said distribution
s h a l l be made."
T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was p r e s e n t e d by b o t h p a r t i e s by way
of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law,
c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f I n Re M a r r i a g e o f M c G i l l
(198o)t - Mont . ,
- 609 P.2d 278, 37 S t . R e p . 578. The
D i s t r i c t C o u r t c h o s e t o a d o p t i t s own f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and
conclusions of law, rather than those s u b m i t t e d by e i t h e r
p a r t y , which i n d i c a t e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had t h e s t a t u t o r y
r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, i n mind in arriving
a t its decision.
Appellant a l l e g e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s
discretion in distribution of the marital assets in two
general ways. First, the court failed to address the
factors enumerated in section 40-4-202, MCA, with
s p e c i f i c i t y i n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w drawn
from t h e evidence before it. Second, the D i s t r i c t Court
a c t e d s o a r b i t r a r i l y t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of s a i d m a r i t a l
a s s e t s under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s was p e r se i n e q u i t a b l e . We
find otherwise. The c o u r t ' s d i r e c t i v e s t o t h e p a r t i e s and
the court's f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w show
that what the District Court did does not warrant
intervention. See I n Re Marriage of Herron (1980),
Mont. , 608 P.2d 9 7 , 37 S t . R e p . 387.
A review of the findings of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f
law dated July 16, 1980, and the order modifying the
f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 1 2 , 1 9 8 0 , w h e t h e r
taken together or separately, and when reviewed with the
r e m a i n d e r o f t h e t o t a l r e c o r d , show t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y gave c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e elements s e t f o r t h
i n Jorgenson and cases cited therein, even if the court
failed to "articulate" each item separately within its
f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s .
While there is no question that appellant, as a
housewife, acquired a vested i n t e r e s t i n the property, the
c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t t h e w i f e " d i d n o t c o n t r i b u t e
by work o r labor any a p p r e c i a b l e e f f o r t s i n improving t h e
property." The record indicates that appellant did not
reside with t h e husband d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e time p e r i o d in
which t h e improvements t o t h e p r o p e r t y w e r e made.
T h i s c a s e is n o t u n l i k e our r e c e n t d e c i s i o n wherein
the appellant husband claimed to have made equal
contributions to the "house" and therefore deserved one-half
of the marital estate. In Re Marriage of Nunnally (1981),
Mont. , 625 P.2d 1159, 38 St.Rep. 529, 531. There
we found the case reflected a careful and conscientious
consideration of the appropriate factors and affirmed the
District Court. We find the same result should be reached
here.
Affirmed.
We concur:
%ti he J
Chief ustd & d
e w