LAWRENCE v HARVEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14879 IN THE SUPREFIE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 MALLORY D. LAWRENCE, Plaintiff and Appellant, VS . CHRISTENE HARVEY et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Honorable H. William Coder, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Larsen and Neill, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Thomas E. Boland, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: January 16, 1980 iV< [, 7 , 1 Filed: .I ,> - -: - , ;. 4 ' L! : ~ecided: MAR - 1989 Mr. 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 . his i s an a c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n of r e a l p r o p e r t y b r o u g h t by M a l l o r y D. Lawrence. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Judge H. William Coder p r e s i d i n g , d e n i e d p l a i n t i f f ' s p r a y e r f o r a p a r t i t i o n s a l e i n a judgment d a t e d June 1 2 , 1979. T h i s judgment o r d e r e d t h e p l a i n t i f f t o q u i t - c l a i m h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e property t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l defend a n t s upon t h e i r payment t o him o f $ 3 7 9 . 1 5 , t h e s m s e t by u t h e D i s t r i c t Court as representing h i s equity. The judgment from which he now a p p e a l s f u r t h e r r e q u i r e d p l a i n t i f f M a l l o r y D. Lawrence t o pay d e f e n d a n t s ' a t t o r n e y s f e e s and c o s t s . The p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n i s a s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e l o c a t e d on a s t a n d a r d c i t y l o t i n G r e a t F a l l s . By agreement of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e property i s n o t s u b j e c t t o a c t u a l p a r t i t i o n , and t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s prayed f o r a p a r t i t i o n s a l e and a d i v i s i o n of t h e p r o c e e d s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n t e r e s t s d e t e r mined by t h e C o u r t . The d e f e n d a n t F i r s t F e d e r a l S a v i n g s and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n h o l d s a f i r s t mortgage on t h e p r o p e r t y . The p r i o r i t y of i t s l i e n i s conceded by a l l p a r t i e s a n d , by s t i p u l a t i o n , it d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s e proceedings. The f i v e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s a r e t h e c h i l d r e n o f p l a i n t i f f M a l l o r y D. Lawrence by h i s former w i f e , Mary K. Lawrence. The a p p e l l a n t l e f t h i s f a m i l y and t h e f a m i l y home i n August 1968 and t h e r e a f t e r r e s i d e d i n a n o t h e r Montana c i t y . Mary K . Lawrence f i l e d a n a c t i o n f o r s e p a r a t e maintenance and c h i l d s u p p o r t on August 5 , 1968, and a f t e r a show c a u s e h e a r i n g on A p r i l 3 , 1969, a p p e l l a n t was o r d e r e d t o pay $225 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t t o t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t pending e n t r y of a decree. The p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n w a s t h e f a m i l y home of M a l l o r y D. Lawrence and Mary K . Lawrence p r i o r t o t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n and d i v o r c e . I n the divorce decree dated August 6 , 1970, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t Judge R . J . Nelson s e t a s i d e t h e f a m i l y home, t o g e t h e r w i t h f u r n i s h i n g s and f i x t u r e s , f o r t h e u s e and b e n e f i t o f Mary K . Lawrence and t h e minor c h i l d r e n " u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r o f t h e C o u r t . " In a d d i t i o n t o awarding t h e u s e of t h e f a m i l y home t o Mary K . Lawrence and t h e f o u r minor c h i l d r e n ( t h e e l d e s t c h i l d had a l r e a d y a t t a i n e d t h e a g e of m a j o r i t y ) , t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e o r d e r e d a p p e l l a n t t o pay $225 p e r month t o t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t " a s and f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e s a i d minor c h i l d r e n A p p e l l a n t made t h e r e q u i r e d payments t h r o u g h F e b r u a r y 1975, when t h e y o u n g e s t o f t h e c h i l d r e n a t t a i n e d t h e a g e o f majority. L a t e r , on December 11, 1975, he p e t i t i o n e d t h e divorce c o u r t f o r an o r d e r determining t h e r e s p e c t i v e i n t e r e s t s of h i m s e l f and h i s former s p o u s e i n t h e p r o p e r t y . A h e a r i n g w a s h e l d on t h i s p e t i t i o n on J a n u a r y 8, 1976, b u t t h e D i s t r i c t Judge made no d e c i s i o n on t h e p e t i t i o n , d e s p i t e t h e e f f o r t s of a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l t o o b t a i n a r u l i n g . K. Mary Lawrence d i s c o v e r e d t h a t s h e had t e r m i n a l c a n c e r and quitclaimed her i n t e r e s t i n the property equally t o t h e f i v e c h i l d r e n of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e defendants-respondents i n t h i s a c t i o n , i n a deed d a t e d and r e c o r d e d May 5 , 1976. i n 1977. D i s t r i c t Judge R . J . She d i e d Nelson had l e f t t h e bench a t t h e end o f 1976 w i t h o u t r u l i n g on a p p e l l a n t ' s p e t i t i o n . M a l l o r y D. Lawrence s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n f o r a p a r t i t i o n of t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y on F e b r u a r y 9 , 1978. The m a t t e r w a s h e a r d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on A p r i l 20, 1979 and t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law, and judg- ment w e r e e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of t h e d e f e n d a n t s on J u n e 1 2 , 1979. The p r o p e r t y w a s o r i g i n a l l y a c q u i r e d i n 1958 by t h e app e l l a n t and Mary K. of survivorship. Lawrence as j o i n t t e n a n t s w i t h a r i g h t The p u r c h a s e p r i c e o f $15,900 was s a t i s - f i e d by t h e assumption of a n e x i s t i n g l o a n i n t h e amount o f $11,750 and by a downpayment of $4,150. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h e s o u r c e of t h a t downpayment t o be $3,029.91 i n j o i n t e q u i t y from t h e s a l e o f a p r e v i o u s f a m i l y home i n M i s s o u l a and a $2,500 l o a n from a p p e l l a n t ' s f a t h e r i n t h e form of a p r o m i s s o r y n o t e s i g n e d by b o t h a p p e l l a n t and Mary K. Lawrence. An u n s p e c i f i e d p o r t i o n of t h i s n o t e w a s p a i d and t h e remainder of t h e o b l i g a t i o n was c a n c e l l e d a f t e r t h e 1970 d i v o r c e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t made t h e f u r t h e r f i n d i n g t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l amount of p r i n c i p a l owing on t h e mortgage assumed by M a l l o r y D. Lawrence and Mary K . Lawrence had been reduced by $3,608.30 a s of t h e d a t e of t h e d i v o r c e . Based on t h e foregoing, t h e D i s t r i c t Court determined a p p e l l a n t ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y t o be one-half p l u s one-half o f t h e downpayment o f t h e e q u i t y accumulated d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e : a t o t a l of $3,879.15. A p p e l l a n t was o r d e r e d t o q u i t c l a i m h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e property t o t h e individual defendants upon t h e i r payment t o him o f t h a t sum. Four i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d by t h i s a p p e a l : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o order a p a r t i t i o n sale? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o c r e d i t a p p e l l a n t with a contribution t o t h e e q u i t y i n t h e home f o r t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments he made a f t e r t h e d a t e of d i v o r c e ? 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o give the appellant c r e d i t f o r a pro-rata share of t h e p r o p e r t y ' s a p p r e c i a t i o n i n v a l u e by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e property a t i t s real market value? 4. Whether M a l l o r y D. Lawrence i s e s t o p p e d from a s - s e r t i n g any i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y beyond t h a t i n t e r e s t which he had as o f t h e d a t e o f t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e ? I t i s a common p r a c t i c e i n cases i n v o l v i n g a d i s s o l u - t i o n of marriage f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Courts t o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e f a m i l y home b e s e t a s i d e d u r i n g t h e m i n o r i t i e s of t h e c h i l d r e n f o r t h e i r u s e and b e n e f i t and f o r t h a t o f t h e i r mother as well. It i s a l s o usual i n such c a s e s f o r t h e c o u r t s t o make some p r o v i s i o n i n t h e d e c r e e f o r a f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e h o u s e , which i s u s u a l l y t h e f a m i l y ' s o n l y major a s s e t , a f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n have r e a c h e d t h e i r m a j o r i t i e s and t h e husband's o b l i g a t i o n t o support has ceased. The problem i n t h i s c a s e arises because t h e decree of d i s s o l u t i o n f a i l e d t o make a n u l t i m a t e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e f a m i l y home, and m e r e l y s e t i t a s i d e f o r t h e u s e and b e n e f i t o f t h e minor c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mother " u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r o f t h e C o u r t . " No s u c h o r d e r was f o r t h c o m i n g p r i o r t o t h e judgment o f t h e District Court i n t h e present action, although the a p p e l l a n t had f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n on December 11, 1975, and r e p e a t e d l y a t t e m p t e d t o o b t a i n a r u l i n g on t h a t p e t i t i o n . S u b s e q u e n t l y , M a l l o r y D. Lawrence b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n f o r a p a r t i t i o n of t h e real property, requesting a p a r t i t i o n s a l e . The f i r s t i s s u e t o b e r e s o l v e d i s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o o r d e r a partition sale. During p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r u l e d , on agreement of t h e p a r t i e s , t h a t a s a m a t t e r o f law t h e e f f e c t o f a q u i t c l a i m deed by one of two j o i n t t e n a n t s t o a t h i r d p a r t y i s t o c r e a t e a t e n a n c y i n common between t h e j o i n t t e n a n t who d i d n o t j o i n i n t h e deed and t h e t h i r d p a r t y . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t i t l e t o t h e residence was h e l d i n j o i n t t e n a n c y by h i m s e l f and h i s former w i f e , s o t h a t when s h e e x e c u t e d a q u i t c l a i m deed t o t h e i r f i v e c h i l d r e n , t h e j o i n t t e n a n c y was s e v e r e d and t h e a p p e l l a n t and h i s c h i l d r e n became t e n a n t s i n common. t h e o r y , he r e t a i n e d a n u n d i v i d e d one-half Under t h i s i n t e r e s t i n the p r o p e r t y w h i l e t h e y s h a r e d e q u a l l y i n t h e w i f e ' s h a l f and t h e r e f o r e each received a n undivided one-tenth i n t e r e s t . In response t o t h e defendants' contentions, a p p e l l a n t claimed i n the alternative h i s contribution t o equity a s a basis for determining h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e property. "The primary o b j e c t o f a n a c t i o n o f p a r t i t i o n [is] ... t o d i v i d e among t h e co-owners ... l a n d h e l d by them e i t h e r a s j o i n t t e n a n t s o r a s t e n a n t s i n common a c c o r d i n g t o . . ." t h e i r respective i n t e r e s t Mont. 201, 200 P.2d 251, 265. Emery v . Emery ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 122 I n Montana, a n a c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n i s a s p e c i a l s t a t u t o r y proceeding. O'Neill ( 1 9 0 5 ) , 31 Mont. 595, 79 P. 242, 243. Hurley v . "We must t h e r e f o r e look t o t h e s t a t u t e f o r t h e a u t h o r i t y t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n , and f o r t h e p r o c e d u r e t o be f o l l o w e d b o t h i n b r i n g i n g t h e a c t i o n and a f t e r i t i s i n s t i t u t e d . " P. a t 243. H u r l e y , s u p r a , 79 Our s t a t u t e a u t h o r i z i n g a n a c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n i s s e c t i o n 70-29-101, MCA: "When s e v e r a l c o t e n a n t s h o l d and a r e i n possession of real property as j o i n t t e n a n t s o r t e n a n t s i n common, i n which one o r more of them have a n e s t a t e o r i n h e r i t a n c e o r f o r l i f e o r l i v e s o r f o r y e a r s , - a c t i o n m a y be an b r o u g h t 9 -e- r more - s u c h p e r s o n s f o r on o - - of a p a r t i t i o n t h e r e o f , according t o t h e respect i v e r i g h t s of t h e persons i n t e r e s t e d t h e r e i n , and f o r a s a l e o f such p r o p e r t y o r a p a r t thereof i f i t appears t h a t a p a r t i t i o n cannot be made w i t h o u t a g r e a t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e owners." (EZnphasis a d d e d . ) Although h e i s a t e n a n t i n common h o l d i n g l e g a l t i t l e t o a n e s t a t e of i n h e r i t a n c e , t h e a p p e l l a n t i n t h i s c a s e i s n o t i n a c t u a l possession of t h e property because of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e g r a n t i n g e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n t o h i s former w i f e , now d e c e a s e d , and t h e i r t h e n minor c h i l d r e n . Actual p h y s i c a l p o s s e s s i o n however h a s been h e l d n o t t o be e s s e n t i a l t o maintenance o f a n a c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n under o u r statute: "The Montana s t a t u t e g i v e s t h e remedy o f p a r t i t i o n t o c o - t e n a n t s 'who h o l d and a r e i n possession of real property a s j o i n t t e n a n t s o r t e n a n t s i n common,' e t c . Code Civ. Proc. 5 1340 [now S 70-29-101, MCA]. W e t h i n k t h a t t h e p o s s e s s i o n which t h e l a w imputes t o t h e holder of t h e l e g a l t i t l e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o maintain p a r t i t i o n , under t h i s s t a t u t e . " Heinze v . B u t t e & Boston C o n s o l i d a t e d Mining Co. ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 0 3 ) , 126 F. 1, 3, c e r t . den. 195 U . S . 631. Having m e t t h e s t a t u t o r y p r e r e q u i s i t e s of s e c t i o n 7029-101, MCA, a p p e l l a n t was e n t i t l e d a s a m a t t e r o f r i g h t t o m a i n t a i n h i s s u i t f o r p a r t i t i o n under t h a t s e c t i o n , which provides: "an a c t i o n may b e b r o u g h t by o n e o r more o f s u c h persons f o r a p a r t i t i o n . . ." This conclusion i s but- t r e s s e d by t h e d i r e c t i v e i n s e c t i o n 70-29-202(1), MCArthat w h i l e t h e c o u r t may o r d e r a p a r t i t i o n sale i n a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i t must o t h e r w i s e o r d e r a n a c t u a l p a r t i t i o n upon t h e r e q u i s i t e p r o o f s b e i n g made. " I f i t be a l l e g e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t and e s t a b l i s h e d by e v i d e n c e o r i f i t a p p e a r by t h e e v i d e n c e w i t h o u t such a l l e g a t i o n i n t h e c o m p l a i n t t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y o r any p a r t i s so s i t u a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i t i o n cannot b e made w i t h o u t g r e a t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e owners, t h e c o u r t may o r d e r a s a l e t h e r e o f ; o t h e r w i s e , upon t h e r e q u i s i t e p r o o f s b e i n g made, - - i t must o r d e r a p a r t i t i o n t o th a c c o r d i n g - -e r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s a s a s c e r t a i n e d by t h e court and a p p o i n t t h r e e r e f e r e e s t h e r e f o r and must d e s i g n a t e t h e p o r t i o n t o remain und i v i d e d f o r t h e owners whose i n t e r e s t s remain unknown o r a r e n o t a s c e r t a i n e d . " S e c t i o n 70-29-202(1), MCA. (Emphasis a d d e d . ) Although t h e r e a r e no Montana c a s e s d i r e c t l y on p o i n t , the general r u l e i s t h a t a cotenant is e n t i t l e d t o p a r t i t i o n a s a matter o f r i g h t , and n o t merely as a m a t t e r of g r a c e within t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e court. While t h e r i g h t i s sometimes s a i d t o be a b s o l u t e , p a r t i t i o n may be d e n i e d where i t would be a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y o r l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s , and t h e r i g h t may i n a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s be waived by agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s . § 21; 59 Am.Jur.2d 68 C.J.S. Partition P a r t i t i o n 530; 4 Thompson on Real P r o p e r t y 5 1822 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; 2 T i f f a n y on Real P r o p e r t y § 474 ( 3 r d e d . 1 9 3 9 ) ; 4A Powell on Real P r o p e r t y 5 611 ( 1 9 4 9 ) . California has i n t e r p r e t e d i t s p a r t i t i o n s t a t u t e i n accordance w i t h t h i s g e n e r a l r u l e . L a z z a r e v i c h v . L a z z a r e v i c h ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 39 Cal.2d 48, 244 P.2d 1, 2 ; DeRoulet v. M i t c h e l ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 70 Cal.App.2d 120, 160 P.2d 574, 576. 70-29-202(1), S e c t i o n s 70-29-101 and M C A , w e r e o r i g i n a l l y e n a c t e d i n 1867 a s p a r t of t h e Bannack S t a t u t e s ; t h e i r s o u r c e i s s e c t i o n s 752 and 763 o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . Montana f o l l o w s t h e r u l e of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t where a s t a t u t e i s a d o p t e d from a s i s t e r s t a t e , i t i s o r d i n a r i l y presumed t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e borrows t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p l a c e d upon i t by t h e h i g h e s t c o u r t of t h e s t a t e from which i t i s borrowed, a l t h o u g h s u c h c o n s t r u c t i o n i s n o t b i n d i n g upon t h i s C o u r t . C o n t i n e n t a l O i l Co. v . Board of Labor Appeals ( 1 9 7 8 ) , - Mont. 582 P.2d 1236, 1240, 35 St.Rep. M i l l e r Co. v . Made1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1322, 35 St.Rep. , Mont. 575 P.2d 1321, 263, 265; S t a t e v. Murphy ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 570 P.2d 1103, 1105, 34 St.Rep. r e l . Mankin v . Wilson ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 924, 34 St.Rep. 1 1153, 1156; J.T. 1075, 1078. - Mont. 1174, 1177; S t a t e e x Mont . 569 P.2d 922, T h e r e f o r e , i n view o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e C a l i f o r n i a s t a t u t e s , which a r e b o t h s i m i l a r t o and t h e s o u r c e o f o u r own s t a t u t e s , w e a r e persuaded t o a d o p t t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i n t h i s j u r i s d i c tion. S i n c e p a r t i t i o n may b e d e n i e d where i t would be a g a i n s t p r i n c i p l e s of l a w o r e q u i t y o r a g a i n s t p u b l i c policy, w e must a s k whether any o f t h e s e r e a s o n s e x i s t f o r d e n y i n g p a r t i t i o n i n t h i s case. The d i f f i c u l t y a r i s e s b e c a u s e o f t h e open d i v o r c e d e c r e e , which f a i l e d t o make a f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e marital property, i.e. s o u g h t t o be p a r t i t i o n e d . t h e house and l o t now C e r t a i n l y , i t would be a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y and p r i n c i p l e s of l a w and e q u i t y t o a l l o w p a r t i t i o n d u r i n g t h e m i n o r i t y of t h e c h i l d r e n w h i l e t h e house w a s s e t a s i d e f o r t h e e x c l u s i v e u s e of t h e mother and minor c h i l d r e n under a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n . In the p r e s e n t c a s e , however, t h e former w i f e i s d e c e a s e d and a l l o f t h e c h i l d r e n have a t t a i n e d t h e a g e of m a j o r i t y . now t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s They a r e c o t e n a n t s , h a v i n g been deeded t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e i r mother by q u i t c l a i m deed p r i o r t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s a c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n . That being t h e c a s e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying p a r t i t i o n . Our c o n c l u s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e d e c i s i o n s i n s e v e r a l cases h o l d i n g t h a t a former s p o u s e i s e n t i t l e d t o p a r t i t i o n a f t e r a d e c r e e of d i v o r c e . T u l l i s v. T u l l i s ( F l a . 1 9 7 8 ) , 360 So.2d 375; B e s t v. ~ i l l i a m s (19761, 260 Ark. 30, 537 S.W.2d 793; Squibb v . Squibb ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 190 Cal.App.2d 766, 1 2 Gal-Rptr. 346; Barba v . Barba ( 1 9 5 1 ) , 103 Cal.App.2d 395, 229 P.2d 465, 466; Deacon v. Deacon ( 1 9 2 9 ) , 1 0 1 Gal-App. 195, 281 P. 240 N . Y . 590, 148 N.E. 533, 535; Yax v. Yax ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 717; Lang v. Lang ( 1 9 2 0 ) , 182 C a l . 765, 770, 190 P. 181. The second i s s u e p r e s e n t e d by t h i s a p p e a l i s whether o r n o t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o c r e d i t appellant with a contribution t o the equity i n the home f o r t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments he made a f t e r t h e d e c r e e of d i v o r c e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d a p p e l l a n t t o q u i t c l a i m h i s i n t e r e s t t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n d e n t s upon t h e i r payment t o him o f a s m r e p r e s e n t i n g one-half u payment made on t h e house p l u s one-half of t h e down- of t h e r e d u c t i o n i n t h e p r i n c i p a l b a l a n c e owing on t h e mortgage a s of t h e d a t e of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e : a t o t a l o f $3,879.15. Thus, a p p e l - l a n t complains he w a s n o t c r e d i t e d w i t h any i n c r e a s e i n e q u i t y i n t h e p r o p e r t y a f t e r t h e 1970 d e c r e e , a l t h o u g h he made s u p p o r t payments o f $225 p e r month u n t i l h i s y o u n g e s t c h i l d r e a c h e d m a j o r i t y i n 1975. The t e s t i m o n y was t h a t t h e house payments, i n c l u d i n g t a x e s and i n s u r a n c e , were a p p r o x i m a t e l y $130 p e r month. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t from March 1969 t o t h e p r e s e n t t i m e , Mary K. Lawrence and h e r c h i l d r e n have made a l l o f t h e monthly mortgage payments and p a i d a l l t a x e s and i n s u r a n c e on t h e p r o p e r t y , w h i l e a p p e l l a n t h a s f a i l e d t o make any such payments. The payments which a p p e l l a n t was o r d e r e d t o make f o r t h e " s u p p o r t " o f h i s minor c h i l d r e n W e r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e common n e c e s s i t i e s of l i f e . I£ t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had i n t e n d e d t h a t a p a r t o f t h e s u p p o r t payment was r e t u r n a b l e t o t h e f a t h e r i n t h e form o f a n e q u i t y i n t h e house a f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e emancipated, i t s h o u l d have been c l e a r l y s p e l l e d o u t i n t h e d i v o r c e judgment. I t w a s not. A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t Judge N e l s o n ' s remarks t o a p p e l l a n t a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e A p r i l 3 , 1969 show c a u s e h e a r i n g d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h e i n t e n d e d t h e $ 2 2 5 monthly c h i l d s u p p o r t payments t o c o v e r t h e house mortgage payments. H i s remarks may a p p e a r t o i n d i c a t e t h i s b u t a g a i n t h e y may n o t . T h i s i s t h e r e a s o n t h a t a r e f u n d of t h i s k i n d must a p p e a r i n t h e judgment. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d a p p e l l a n t c r e d i t f o r any i n c r e a s e i n e q u i t y i n t h e house on a c c o u n t of t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments he made a f t e r t h e d e c r e e of d i v o r c e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o c r e d i t a p p e l l a n t w i t h a p r o - r a t a property's appreciation i n value. s h a r e of t h e A p p e l l a n t remained a c o t e n a n t a f t e r t h e 1970 d i v o r c e d e c r e e , and a s such he was e n t i t l e d t o a s h a r e of t h e a p p r e c i a t i o n i n p r o p o r t i o n t o h i s i n t e r e s t i n the property. By l i m i t i n g h i s i n t e r e s t t o one- h a l f of t h e 1958 downpayment and one-half o f t h e amount by which t h e p r i n c i p a l owing on t h e mortgage was reduced d u r i n g t h e marriage, t h e D i s t r i c t Court completely denied a p p e l l a n t t h e b e n e f i t of t h e p r o p e r t y ' s i n c r e a s e i n v a l u e o v e r t h e p a s t twenty-odd y e a r s . A p p e l l a n t w a s e n t i t l e d t o h i s pro- p o r t i o n a t e share of t h a t appreciation a s a cotenant. T h a t i s n o t t o s a y t h a t a p a r t i t i o n c o u r t may n o t make an e q u i t a b l e adjustment of t h e cotenants' i n t e r e s t s . On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r u l e i s t h a t " [ t l h e c o u r t can a d j u s t a l l t h e e q u i t i e s of the p a r t i e s t o a p a r t i t i o n s u i t , i f they a r e l i m i t e d t o such a s a r i s e from t h e p a r t i t i o n of t h e l a n d . . ." 4 ~ h o m p s o non R e a l P r o p e r t y § § 1829, 1830 a t 331 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . See a l s o 4A Powell on Real P r o p e r t y S 611 a t 646-647 68 C.J.S. Partition C a l . ~ p p . 2 d 440, § (1949); 135; Demetris v . D e m e t r i s ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 125 270 P.2d 891, 894; W i t h i n g t o n v. C o l l i n s ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 60 Cal.App.2d 110, 1 4 0 P.2d 493, 495. Our p a r t i t i o n s t a t u t e provides t h a t " [ t l h e r i g h t of t h e s e v e r a l p a r t i e s , p l a i n t i f f a s w e l l a s d e f e n d a n t , may be p u t i n i s s u e , t r i e d , and d e t e r m i n e d i n s u c h a c t i o n . " S e c t i o n 70-29-201, MCA. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t a p p e l l a n t c e a s e d making house payments a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e w a s g r a n t e d , and a l l house payments a f t e r t h a t t i m e w e r e made by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s and t h e i r mother. " I n t h e f i n a l a c c o u n t i n g between t h e co- t e n a n t s i n c i d e n t t o p a r t i t i o n , a c o t e n a n t w i l l be c h a r g e d with . . . payments i n d i s c h a r g e of p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t on mortgages and o t h e r l i e n s Property § . . ." 6.26 a t 117 ( 1 9 5 2 ) . ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 6 App.Div.2d Cody ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 261 Ala. ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 228 W i s . 2 American Law o f See a l s o B a i l e y v . Mormino 993, 175 N.Y.S.2d 993; Fundaburk v . 25, 72 So.2d 710; Hermance v . Weisner 501, 279 N.W. 608, 610. Thus, r e s p o n d e n t s s h o u l d be c r e d i t e d w i t h payments i n e x c e s s of t h e i r s h a r e expended by them a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e f o r p r i n c i p a l and i n t e r e s t p l u s i n s u r a n c e and t a x e s on t h e p r o p e r t y . Appellant i s not e n t i t l e d t o an o f f s e t against t h i s c r e d i t f o r the r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t i m e before t h i s action. Even though t h e r e s p o n d e n t s re- mained i n e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a c o t e n a n t i n p o s s e s s i o n i s n o t l i a b l e f o r t h e u s e and occup a t i o n of t h e p r e m i s e s . 68 C.J.S. Partition § 138(b), That i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n t h i s c a s e where r e s p o n d e n t s e n j o y e d t h e b e n e f i t s of p o s s e s s i o n under a c o u r t d e c r e e . he re- s p o n d e n t s , however, must a c c o u n t f o r t h e v a l u e of t h e i r u s e and occupation i n e x c e s s of t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e a f t e r t h e a p p e l l a n t demanded t h e e q u i v a l e n t of j o i n t p o s s e s s i o n i n F e b r u a r y 1978 by i n i t i a t i n g t h i s a c t i o n f o r a p a r t i t i o n sale. E l d r i d g e v . Wolf N.Y.S. ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 129 Misc.Rep. 617, 221 508, 511. The f i n a l i s s u e f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s w h e t h e r o r n o t M a l l o r y D. Lawrence i s e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g a n y i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y beyond t h a t which h e had a s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e divorce decree. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t h e was s o e s t o p p e d f o r two r e a s o n s : (1) b e c a u s e h e a l l e g e d l y changed h i s p u r p o s e t o t h e i n j u r y o f t h e d e f e n d a n t by f i r s t c l a i m i n g t o have made c h i l d s u p p o r t payments u n d e r t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e a n d t h e n a s s e r t i n g t h a t h e h a s been making house payments a l l t h e s e y e a r s ; and ( 2 ) b e c a u s e h e a l l e g e d l y a t t e m p t e d t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f h i s own "wrong" by f a i l i n g t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e a c c u m u l a t e d e q u i t y i n t h e p r o p e r t y and by now s e e k i n g a n award o f p a r t o f t h a t e q u i t y . I t i s unnecessary f o r u s t o consider t h e f i r s t f i n d i n g b e c a u s e w e have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d a p p e l l a n t c r e d i t f o r any i n c r e a s e i n e q u i t y i n t h e h o u s e on a c c o u n t o f t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments h e made a f t e r t h e divorce decree. W e disagree with the District Court's c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a p p e l l a n t was e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g a n y i n t e r e s t i n the property's appreciation i n value a f t e r the divorce f o r reasons s t a t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s opinion r e l a t i n g t o h i s r i g h t s a s a cotenant. F u r t h e r m o r e , a p p e l l a n t com- m i t t e d no "wrong" by f a i l i n g t o make h o u s e payments a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e , and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t h e i s e s t o p p e d t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f h i s own a l l e g e d "wrong" i s erroneous. I n summary, t h e r e was no s u b s t a n t i a l b a s i s f o r 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 as t o a p p e l l a n t ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y , and t h e s e f i n d i n g s must be s e t a s i d e . "Where t h e r e i s no s u b s t a n t i a l b a s i s f o r D i s t r i c t C o u r t f i n d i n g s and i f a c l e a r and s a t i s f a c t o r y showing i s n o t made t o support t h e findings, t h i s Court w i l l set such f i n d i n g s aside." Swanson v. S t . J o h n ' s L u t h e r a n H o s p i t a l ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 597 P.2d 702, 708, 36 St.Rep. 1075. See a l s o Johnson v. Johnson ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 150, 560 P.2d 1331, 1333. The c a u s e i s a f f i r m e d i n p a r t and r e v e r s e d i n p a r t and remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a p a r t i t i o n s a l e and t o a d j u s t the p a r t i e s ' e q u i t i e s i n conformity with t h i s opinion. Justice W e concur: %&JPZ'~Chief J u s t i c e -a. Justices
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.
