HOUSER v HOUSER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13205 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F M N A A OTN 1977 BARBARA J . HOUSER, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsJAMES A . HOUSER, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, H o n o r a b l e C h a r l e s Luedke, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: J o s e p h E . Mudd a r g u e d , B r i d g e r , Montana For Respondent : James Reno a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : ~iled:,!bN LJ Yjl January 26, .luN 2 9 1977 1977 M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by t h e husband from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, awarding t h e m a r i t a l home t o t h e wife i n an annulment a c t i o n and d e c l a r i n g t h e husband's name was placed on t h e deed only a s s e c u r i t y f o r t h e down payment loan made on t h e house. The s o l e i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e husband's appeal i s h i s a s s e r t i o n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had no r i g h t t o award t o t h e w i f e p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d i n t h e i r j o i n t names b e f o r e t h e marriage. T h i s i s s u e was n o t r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Moreover, defendant husband i n h i s answer and counterclaim t o t h e w i f e ' s r e q u e s t t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y be e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e d , a l s o r e q u e s t e d a n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y . The i n s t a n t annulment was t h e second marriage between Barbara J . Houser and James A . Houser. they had one c h i l d , J e n n i f e r . During t h e f i r s t marriage After the divorce the p a r t i e s s t a r t e d d a t i n g a g a i n , and i n March 1973 they made a down payment on a home which Barbara was r e n t i n g . names a s j o i n t t e n a n t s . T i t l e was placed i n b o t h James Houser, through h i s f a t h e r , f u r n i s h e d t h e $4,000 down payment t o be r e p a i d a t t h e r a t e of $100 p e r month which included a 6% i n t e r e s t charge. I n December 1973, Barbara and James remarried b u t t h e marriage l a s t e d only a few months. I n 1974, Barbara Houser f i l e d a n a c t i o n f o r annulment and asked t h e c o u r t t o e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e t h e p e r s o n a l and r e a l p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d by t h e p a r t i e s . I n h i s answer and counterclaim James Houser a l s o requested t h e c o u r t t o make an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of t h e property. He made no a t t e m p t t o l i m i t t h e c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r a - t i o n o f p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d a f t e r they were married. A t t r i a l , Barbara Houser contended t h e $4,000 down payment was a loan t o h e r and James Houser's name was on t h e deed only a s s e c u r i t y f o r t h e loan. James d i s p u t e d t h e loan a l l e g a t i o n and contended t h e p a r t i e s agreed t o j o i n t ownership of t h e p r o p e r t y . A t t r i a l , he d i d n o t contend t h e t r i a l c o u r t had no r i g h t t o d i v i d e t h e p r o p e r t y ; he was merely a s k i n g f o r a d i f f e r e n t d i s p o s i t i o n t h a n t h a t awarded. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t i t l e t o t h e home ( s u b j e c t t o a mortgage f o r t h e balance of t h e purchase p r i c e ) was i n Barbara Houser's name and James Houser's name was p l a c e d on t h e deed 1I f o r s e c u r i t y purposes o n l y , and was meant t o s e c u r e t h e repay- ment o f s a i d loan [ t h e down payment] ." By h i s p l e a d i n g s and by h i s approach a t t r i a l , defendant James Houser c l e a r l y requested t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o use i t s e q u i t a b l e powers t o make a d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e home. He cannot now complain t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had no r i g h t t o do so. v. Solberg, 119 Mont. 45, 169 P.2d 722. Epletveit The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was n o t compelled t o o r d e r t h e home s o l d and t h e proceeds d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between t h e p a r t i e s , a s defendant i n s i s t s . Rather, t h e c o u r t found t h a t defendant James Houser had no ownership r i g h t s i n t h e p r o p e r t y , except a s e c u r i t y i n t e r e s t f o r repayment o f t h e $4,000. W emphasize t h a t James Houser d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . W a f f i r m t h e judgment. e We Concur: 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.