TEFFT v TEFFT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-74 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 BEVERLY J. TEFFT, Petitioner and Appellant, ALFRED E. TEFFT, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: ~istrictCourt of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade. Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Randono and Donovan, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Smith, Baillie & Walsh, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 5, 1981 - Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. t h e Court. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of On F e b r u a r y 27, 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a d e c r e e which d i s s o l v e d t h e m a r r i a g e of p e t i t i o n e r and r e s p o n d e n t , e s t a b l i s h e d c h i l d c u s t o d y and c h i l d s u p p o r t , d i v i d e d t h e r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y c o m p r i s i n g t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e and o r d e r e d t h a t e a c h p a r t y pay h i s o r h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s . T h i s d e c r e e was amended March 25, 1980, and from t h a t amended order, p e t i t i o n e r appeals. B e v e r l y and A l f r e d T e f f t m a r r i e d on November 20, 1965. A l f r e d , a widower, had f o u r c h i l d r e n from h i s p r i o r m a r r i a g e . These c h i l d r e n were a d o p t e d by B e v e r l y f o l l o w i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . B e v e r l y and A l f r e d had no o t h e r c h i l d r e n . B e v e r l y i s a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r working a t C h a r l e s M. R u s s e l l High School i n G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. 1978 w a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $15,000. H e r income f o r Alfred i s a v i c e president of t h e Cogswell Agency, a n e s t a b l i s h e d i n s u r a n c e f i r m i n Great F a l l s . H i s income f o r 1978 from t h i s f i r m w a s a p p r o x i - m a t e l y $34,250. A t t h e t i m e t h e d e c r e e was e n t e r e d t h e a g e s of the four c h i l d r e n were: Gregory, 2 1 ; T e r r i e , 1 9 ; T r a c y , 1 8 ; and Kristie, Beverly. 17. The d e c r e e g r a n t e d c u s t o d y of K r i s t i e t o The c o u r t o r d e r e d A l f r e d t o pay $200 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r K r i s t i e , Tracy and T e r r i e . The d e c r e e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t T e r r i e s u f f e r e d from a l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y which slowed h e r e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s . Alfred's obligation t o s u p p o r t t h e t h r e e d a u g h t e r s e x t e n d e d u n t i l e a c h was g r a d u a t e d from h i g h s c h o o l o r o t h e r w i s e became emancipated. The d e c r e e f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d t h a t A l f r e d c o u l d a p p l y h i s d a u g h t e r s ' s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s on his s u p p o r t o b l i - The d e c r e e o r d e r e d t h a t Beverly was e n t i t l e d t o u s e of t h e f a m i l y home u n t i l t h e t h r e e d a u g h t e r s w e r e g r a d u a t e d from h i g h s c h o o l o r o t h e r w i s e became emancipated. The home and f u r n i s h i n g s were t h e n t o be s o l d and t h e n e t p r o c e e d s divided equally. N s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n was made r e g a r d i n g o mortgage payments d u r i n g t h e i n t e r i m . The r e m a i n i n g r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y ( w i t h t h e ex- c e p t i o n of s p e c i f i e d f a m i l y h e i r l o o m s conceded t o A l f r e d ) were v a l u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and d i v i d e d on a 50-50 basis. Certain investment p r o p e r t i e s acquired during t h e m a r r i a g e were o r d e r e d t o be s o l d a s soon a s p o s s i b l e and t h e n e t proceeds divided equally. A t t o r n e y f e e s were made t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of e a c h p a r t y . Motions t o a l t e r o r amend t h e d e c r e e were f i l e d by b o t h parties. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t amended t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e . The amending o r d e r e l i m i n a t e d A l f r e d ' s o b l i g a t i o n of s u p p o r t f o r t h e a d u l t d a u g h t e r s , T e r r i e and Tracy. The o r d e r i n c r e a s e d t h e monthly s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n f o r K r i s t i e t o $250. Alfred c o u l d a p p l y K r i s t i e ' s s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s toward h i s support obligation. The s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s of T e r r i e and Tracy were o r d e r e d t h e i r own p r o p e r t y , and t h e two were advised t o apply f o r t h e b e n e f i t s i n t h e i r individual names. The amending o r d e r a l s o a l t e r e d t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e by a l l o w i n g A l f r e d t o pay Beverly h a l f of t h e v a l u e p l a c e d on t h e i n v e s t m e n t p r o p e r t i e s i n s t e a d of s e l l i n g t h e p r o p e r t i e s and d i v i d i n g t h e p r o c e e d s . Under t h i s amendment B e v e r l y was g i v e n a judgment of $17,346.50 f o r her i n t e r e s t i n t h e investment p r o p e r t i e s . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e d e a l t w i t h on a p p e a l : 1. Whether p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o a l t e r o r amend t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e was t i m e l y h e a r d a s p r e s c r i b e d by ~ u l e 59 ( d ) ( g ) , M.R.Civ.P.? 2. Whether t h i s a p p e a l i s l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o t h e m a t t e r s d e a l t w i t h i n t h e amending o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t b e c a u s e t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s n o t i c e of a p p e a l o n l y d e s i g n a t e d t h e amending o r d e r and n o t t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e ? 3 . 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 n o t awarding c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r T e r r i e and T r a c y , a g e s 1 9 and 18, r e s p e c t i v e l y ? 4 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g a $200 p e r month c r e d i t a g a i n s t c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r s o c i a l s e c u r i t y payments r e c e i v e d ? 5. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o properly value the investment p r o p e r t i e s i n the m a r i t a l estate? 6. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by e f f e c t i n g a 50- 50 p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e ? 7. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n n o t awarding -. attorney fees t o the petitioner? The f i r s t two p r o c e d u r a l i s s u e s must be a d d r e s s e d a t the outset. Rule 59 ( g ) , M.R.Civ.P., s t a t e s t h a t motions t o amend a judgment must be h e a r d and d e t e r m i n e d w i t h i n t h e same t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s which a p p l y t o m o t i o n s f o r new t r i a l . Rule 59 ( d ) , X.R.Civ.P. , sets f o r t h t h o s e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s . This provision s t a t e s : "Hearing on t h e motion s h a l l b e had w i t h i n 10 d a y s e x c e p t t h a t a t any a f t e r i t h a s been s e r v e d t i m e a f t e r t h e n o t i c e of h e a r i n g on t h e motion h a s been s e r v e d t h e c o u r t may i s s u e a n o r d e r c o n t i n u i n g In case t h e h e a r i n g f o r n o t t o exceed 30 d a y s . t h e h e a r i n g i s c o n t i n u e d by t h e c o u r t , i t s h a l l b e t h e d u t y of t h e c o u r t t o h e a r t h e same a t t h e e a r l i e s t p r a c t i c a b l e d a t e t h e r e a f t e r , and t h e c o u r t s h a l l r u l e upon and d e c i d e t h e motion w i t h i n 1 5 days . . . ... " I f t h e motion i s n o t n o t i c e d up f o r h e a r i n g and no h e a r i n g i s h e l d t h e r e o n , i t s h a l l be deemed d e n i e d a s of t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e p e r i o d t i m e w i t h i n which h e a r i n g i s r e q u i r e d t o be h e l d under t h i s Rule 59." I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d and s e r v e d a motion t o amend on March 6, 1980. Because s e r v i c e was accomplished by m a i l , a n a d d i t i o n a l t h r e e d a y s must be added t o t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n Rule 59 ( d ) M.R.Civ.P. . Rule 6 ( e ), T h e r e f o r e , t h e h e a r i n g on t h i s motion t o amend was e i t h e r r e q u i r e d t o be h e l d w i t h i n 1 3 d a y s , commencing on March 7 , 1980, o r was r e q u i r e d t o be c o n t i n u e d by t h e c o u r t w i t h i n 1 3 d a y s , commencing w i t h March 7 , 1980. On March 1 8 , 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , s u a s p o n t e , e n t e r e d a n o r d e r s e t t i n g a h e a r i n g d a t e on p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o amend ( a s w e l l as r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion t o amend of March 7 , 1980) f o r March 21, 1980. T h i s o r d e r was f i l e d on March 1 9 , 1980, which was t h e l a s t day of t h e 13-day p e r i o d . The c o u r t ' s o r d e r of March 1 8 , 1980, c o n s t i t u t e s a c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e h e a r i n g d a t e on t h e motions t o a l t e r o r amend. T h a t o r d e r d i d s e t a h e a r i n g d a t e w i t h i n t h e 30-day p e r i o d r e q u i r e d by Rule 5 9 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e n r u l e d on t h e motions t o a l t e r o r amend w i t h i n f i v e days following t h e hearing. Therefore, the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s motions t o a l t e r o r amend t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y t i m e r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n Rule 5 9 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. The amend- i n g o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s v a l i d . R e s p o n d e n t ' s second p r o c e d u r a l i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e s c o p e of t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s n o t i c e of a p p e a l . On A p r i l 11, 1980, p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l s t a t i n g t h a t B e v e r l y J. T e f f t ... o f Judge J o e l G. Roth d a t e d March 2 4 , hereby a p p e a l s . . . ". . . from t h e d e c i s i o n 1980, amending h i 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 of Law and Decree." Re- s p o n d e n t a r g u e s t h a t t h i s a p p e a l must be l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o i s s u e s a r i s i n g from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s amending o r d e r b e c a u s e Rule 4 ( c ) , M.R.App.Civ.P., provides t h a t : "The n o t i c e of a p p e a l ... a p p e a l e d from." Respondent c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e amending o r d e r s h a l l d e s i g n a t e t h e judgment o r o r d e r and o r i g i n a l d e c r e e i n t h i s a c t i o n are n e c e s s a r i l y s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t ; t h u s r e s p o n d e n t a r g u e s t h a t a s p e c i f i c n o t i c e of a p p e a l from t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e i s r e q u i r e d b e f o r e r e v i e w of t h a t d e c r e e i s p o s s i b l e . Respondent's contention ignores t h e interdependent n a t u r e of t h e amending o r d e r and t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e . F i n a l i t y of t h e o r i g i n a l judgment must a w a i t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e lower c o u r t r e g a r d i n g motions t o amend o r a l t e r . T h i s i s e v i d e n c e d by Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P., which s u s p e n d s t h e r u n n i n g of t h e t i m e w i t h i n which a n a p p e a l must be t a k e n , w h i l e a motion t o a l t e r o r amend a judgment i s b e i n g considered. The i n t e r t w i n e m e n t of an amending o r d e r and a n o r i g i n a l judgment n e c e s s i t a t e s r e v i e w of a l l i s s u e s cont a i n e d i n b o t h ; t h u s a n a p p e a l from e i t h e r i n c o r p o r a t e s a l l i s s u e s of b o t h f o r review. This holding i s i n keeping with t h e p h i l o s o p h y of modern a p p e l l a t e p r a c t i c e t h a t t e c h n i c a l d e f e c t s of p r o c e d u r e s h o u l d n o t b a r a p a r t y from a c c e s s t o the courts. J.C. Penney, I n c . and F . W . Employment S e c u r i t y D i v i s i o n (1981) , 3 8 St.Rep. Woolworth Co. v . Mont. -I P.2d -- 694. The s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v i n g a n a p p e a l from an amending o r d e r , a s i s t h e c a s e h e r e , must be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from s i t u a t i o n s where a p a r t y a p p e a l s from one o r d e r i n a series of s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t o r d e r s , o r from one p a r t of a d i v i s i b l e judgment. This Court has previously held t h a t a f a i l u r e t o d e s i g n a t e a l l o r d e r s o r t h e e n t i r e judgment i n such s i t u a t i o n s l i m i t s t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t s o l e l y t o t h e , matters d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e a p p e a l n o t i c e . S t a t e v. odd C1945), 117 Mont. 80, 158 P.2d 299; S p e r l i n g v . C a l f e e ( 1 8 8 8 ) , 7 Mont. 514, 19 P . 204. However, a n amending o r d e r and an o r i g i n a l judgment c a n n o t b e viewed as s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t o r d i v i s i b l e and, t h e r e f o r e , t h i s r u l e c a n n o t be applied i n the case a t bar. P e t i t i o n e r ' s n o t i c e of a p p e a l i s s u f f i c i e n t t o p r e s e r v e a l l i s s u e s f o r review. P e t i t i o n e r ' s n e x t i s s u e on a p p e a l c o n c e r n s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s t e r m i n a t i o n of c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r t h e two a d u l t d a u g h t e r s , T e r r i e and Tracy. P e t i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s t h a t such a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s e r r o r on t h e p a r t of t h e lower c o u r t . However, i n C h r e s t e n s o n v. C h r e s t e n s o n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. , - 589 P.2d 148, 36 St.Rep. 103, t h i s C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a p a r e n t ' s l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n under Montana c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s t e r m i n a t e d when a c h i l d became a n adult. The C h r e s t e n s o n c o u r t f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t t h i s d e t e r - m i n a t i o n d i d n o t c o n t r a d i c t s e c t i o n 4 8 - 3 3 0 ( 3 ) , R.C.M., (now s e c t i o n 40-4-208, MCA) which a l l o w s : 1947, "parties t o agree i n w r i t i n g o r e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e i n t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n f o r t e r m i n a t i o n of c h i l d s u p p o r t a t an a g r e e d upon a g e o r time." C h r e s t e n s o n a t 150. In the case a t bar, the p a r t i e s d i d n o t r e a c h any agreement. I n t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , r e s p o n d e n t A l f r e d T e f f t was o r d e r e d t o pay $200 p e r month f o r e a c h of h i s t h r e e d a u g h t e r s , who were s t i l l r e s i d i n g a t t h e f a m i l y home w i t h p e t i t i o n e r B e v e r l y T e f f t . This support o b l i g a t i o n was t o end when e a c h g i r l completed h i g h s c h o o l . ~ollowing t h e h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e motions t o amend, t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t a l t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and d e c r e e by terminating the support obligation a s t o ~ e r r i e and Tracy. These d a u g h t e r s w e r e 1 9 and 1 8 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , a t t h e t i m e the o r i g i n a l decree w a s entered. S i n c e no agreement between t h e p a r t i e s existed regarding support f o r these a d u l t c h i l - d r e n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s merely conforming i t s o r i g i n a l d e c r e e w i t h t h e law espoused i n C h r e s t e n s o n . This p o r t i o n of t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . P e t i t i o n e r next contends t h a t the D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n allowing respondent, Alfred T e f f t , t o apply s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s r e c e i v e d by him on b e h a l f of K r i s t i e , t h e minor c h i l d , toward h i s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d A l f r e d t o pay $250 p e r month f o r K r i s t i e . The s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s r e c e i v a b l e on b e h a l f of K r i s t i e amounted t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y $200 p e r month. Thus, i n e f f e c t , t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r r e q u i r e d A l f r e d t o pay o n l y $50 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t from h i s own f u n d s . S e c t i o n 40-4-204, MCA, sets forth relevant factors a c o u r t must l o o k t o i n d e t e r m i n i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t . The f a c t o r s are: " ( 1 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e c h i l d ; " ( 2 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ; " ( 3 ) t h e s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g t h e c h i l d would have enjoyed had t h e m a r r i a g e n o t been d i s s o l v e d ; " ( 4 ) t h e p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e c h i l d and h i s e d u c a t i o n a l needs; and " ( 5 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s and needs of t h e noncust o d i a l parent. " The lower c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y from b o t h B e v e r l y T e f f t and Alfred Tefft. Evidence e x i s t e d ( a l t h o u g h n o t e x t e n s i v e ) r e g a r d i n g t h e f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h above. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r acknowledged t h a t t h e s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s were t h e p r o p e r t y of K r i s t i e . The c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t K r i s t i e needed $250 s u p p o r t e a c h month, and t h a t $200 of s u c h amount would be s u p p l i e d by h e r own f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s . Although A l f r e d T e f f t h a s an income of more t h a n $34,000 a y e a r and pays o n l y $50 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t , t h i s f a c t a l o n e i s n o t d e t e r m i n a t i v e t h a t t h e lower c o u r t abused i t s The need o f t h e c h i l d , a s w e l l a s t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l discretion. p a r e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o p a y , must be c o n s i d e r e d . 204, MCA. S e c t i o n 40-4- W e cannot say t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s - c r e t i o n a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e o r d e r of s u p p o r t i s a f f i r m e d . P e t i t i o n e r s p e c i f i e s several e r r o r s regarding the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s v a l u a t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e f o r p u r p o s e s of d i s t r i b u t i o n . A f t e r c a r e f u l review, we f i n d t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s p o s i n g of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . The d e c r e e p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e on 1017 Durange, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana, was t o b e u s e d by B e v e r l y and t h e t h r e e d a u g h t e r s u n t i l t h e y o u n g e s t w a s g r a d u a t e d from h i g h s c h o o l o r o t h e r w i s e became e m a n c i p a t e d . Upon s u c h oc- c u r r e n c e , t h e home and f u r n i s h i n g s w e r e t o b e s o l d a s soon a s p o s s i b l e and t h e n e t p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d e q u a l l y . No o r d e r w a s made r e g a r d i n g t h e $250 monthly mortgage payment. Under t h e d e c r e e A l f r e d h a s no o b l i g a t i o n t o make t h e payment. B e v e r l y , who l i v e s i n t h e home, w i l l s a t i s f y t h i s obligation thereby building f u t u r e equity f o r Alfred. Such a n a r r a n g e m e n t w i l l r e s u l t i n a n i n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of a s s e t s a t t h e t i m e o f s a l e and c a n n o t b e s u s t a i n e d . R e g a r d i n g A l f r e d ' s i n v e s t m e n t s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made the following findings, p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s decision: Current Market Value Asset 40 A c r e s A c q u i r e d From A m e r i c a n Montana Land Unknown Command P a r t n e r s 1 / 7 t h Interest Net Value Unknown Unknown $12,285 None $ 2,500 American Montana Land 1 / 6 t h Interest Amount Owed Thereon $ 6,500 W e s t American Lands I n c . 1/7th I n t e r e s t . $12,285 The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r i g i n a l l y o r d e r e d t h a t t h i s p r o p e r t y , a l o n g w i t h a l l o t h e r i n v e s t m e n t p r o p e r t y , b e s o l d and t h e proceeds divided equally. I n i t s o r d e r amending t h e d e c r e e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l t e r e d t h i s and o r d e r e d t h a t A l f r e d pay t o B e v e r l y h a l f of t h e e q u i t y . The c o u r t f a i l e d t o d e t e r - mine a v a l u e f o r one of t h e p r o p e r t i e s . Thus t h e v a l u a t i o n on which t h e d i s p o s i t i o n i s based i s i n a d e q u a t e , and t h i s c a u s e must be remanded. , Mont. Hamilton v. Hamilton ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 607 P.2d 102, 37 St.Rep. - 247. A d d i t i o n a l l y , problems a r i s e r e g a r d i n g t h e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of A l f r e d ' s e q u i t y i n t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s , t h u s c r e a t i n g problems i n t h e n e t worth d e t e r m i n a t i o n . t e s t i f i e d twice i n t h i s matter. Alfred I n December 1979, A l f r e d s t a t e d he owned a 1 / 6 t h i n t e r e s t i n a c o r p o r a t i o n denomin a t e d named American Montana Land. 250 a c r e s of r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d . This c o r p o r a t i o n purchased Alfred t e s t i f i e d t h a t the c o r p o r a t i o n owed $26,500 on t h e p r o p e r t y . He stated that t h e c o r p o r a t i o n had deeded 4 0 a c r e s of t h e l a n d t o him individually. A l f r e d f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d h e d i d n ' t know i f any encumbrances, o t h e r t h a n t h e one on t h e e n t i r e t r a c t , e x i s t e d on t h i s 40-acre p a r c e l . A l f r e d s a i d he d i d n ' t know what comparable l a n d i n t h e same a r e a was s e l l i n g f o r b u t s p e c u l a t e d t h a t h i s p a r c e l was worth $2,000-$3,000. he c o u r t a c c e p t e d t h i s v a l u a t i o n , p l a c i n g a $2,500 v a l u e on t h e 40 acres. The c o u r t a l s o found t h a t A l f r e d ' s 1 / 6 t h i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n had a n unknown v a l u e . When A l f r e d t e s t i f i e d i n J a n u a r y 1980, s e v e r a l a s p e c t s o f t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n had changed. The c o r p o r a t i o n which owned t h e 250 a c r e s of r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d was now c a l l e d West American Land C o r p o r a t i o n . Alfred d i d not explain the change i n c o r p o r a t i o n ownership, b u t a p p a r e n t l y West American Land C o r p o r a t i o n succeeded t o t h e i n t e r e s t of American Montana Land. H i s i n t e r e s t i n West American Land was 1 / 7 t h . NO mention w a s made of t h e 40-acre him. t r a c t of l a n d deeded t o A l f r e d e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n l a n d had no equity. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $26,500 encumbrance o r i g i n a l l y t e s t i f i e d t o , A l f r e d s t a t e d t h a t t h e l a n d was pledged a s s e c u r i t y f o r a $60,000 n o t e a t a l o c a l bank. u n c l e a r on whether A l f r e d ' s 40-acre The r e c o r d i s t r a c t i s s o encumbered. However, t h e r e a p p a r e n t l y i s a n $86,500 d e b t a g a i n s t t h e corporate land. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t A l f r e d ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e W e s t American Lands Corp. had no v a l u e b e c a u s e t h e v a l u e of t h e l a n d d i d n o t exceed t h e amount of i t s encumbrance. I n making t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e $60r000 n o t e t o be a l i a b i l i t y of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . The problem r e s u l t i n g from t h i s , i s t h a t t h e $60,000 borrowed by West American Land was used a s i n v e s t m e n t f u n d s i n A l f r e d ' s l a t e s t e n t e r p r i s e , Command P a r t n e r s , f r a n c h i s e . A l f r e d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and s i x o t h e r p e o p l e c o n t r i b u t e d $6,500 e a c h toward t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e of t h e f r a n c h i s e p l u s t h e $60,000 o b t a i n e d by p l e d g i n g t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d . In 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 , however, t h i s $60,000 was n o t added a s e q u i t y ; a l t h o u g h i t was c a l c u l a t e d a s a l i a b i l i t y i n v a l u i n g t h e c o r p o r a t e s t o c k of West American Land. The c o u r t found t h a t A l f r e d ' s i n t e r e s t i n Command P a r t n e r s was o n l y $6,500. From t h i s t e s t i m o n y i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t a t r u e n e t worth of t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s was n o t made. Encumbrances on t h e v a r y i n g p r o p e r t i e s were n o t c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d , nor was t h e proper equity i n t h e s e proper ties calculated. P e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t s e e k a maintenance award, b u t o n l y a n e q u i t a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found, r e g a r d i n g t h e r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s of b o t h B e v e r l y and A l f r e d , t h a t : ". . . t h e n e e d s of t h e p a r t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o s h e l t e r , food, c l o t h i n g , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , u t i l i t i e s , and t h e normal e x p e n s e s of l i v i n g a r e r e l a t i v e l y e q u a l t h e P e t i t i o n e r B e v e r l y and Respondent A l f r e d have a n e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of i n come and c a p i t a l a s s e t s b u t t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t Respondent A l f r e d i s p r e s e n t l y e a r n i n g o v e r t w i c e t h e amount of t h e income of P e t i t i o n e r B e v e r l y and w i l l p r o b a b l y c o n t i n u e t o do s o the contributions of t h e P e t i t i o n e r B e v e r l y and t h e Respondent A l f r e d t o the family u n i t a r e equal." . . . ... B e v e r l y c u r r e n t l y e a r n s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $15,000 p e r y e a r . She i s paying $250 p e r month f o r mortgage payments on t h e house. Three c h i l d r e n s t i l l r e s i d e a t t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e . These c h i l d r e n do n o t have r e g u l a r employment, t h u s r e q u i r i n g some f i n a n c i a l h e l p . A l f r e d i s o b l i g a t e d t o pay s u p p o r t f o r o n l y one of t h e c h i l d r e n . R e a l i t y d i c t a t e s t h a t under t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s B e v e r l y would have a v e r y poor o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l assets and income. On t h e o t h e r hand, A l f r e d e a r n s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $34,000. H e h a s been r e c e i v i n g a n n u a l r a i s e s of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,000 per year. H i s position i n the established insurance firm, Cogswell Agency, i s s e c u r e . H i s only personal obligation v i a t h i s d i s s o l u t i o n i s c h i l d s u p p o r t of $50 p e r month. Clearly, Alfred has f a r g r e a t e r opportunity f o r f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l a s s e t s and income. I n l i g h t o f Smith v. Smith ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 1022, 38 St.Rep. Mont.- , 622 P. 2d 146, t h i s 50-50 d i s t r i b u t i o n c a n n o t s t a n d . The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s have e q u a l a c c e s s t o t h e f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s and a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . Z e l l v. Zell (1980), Mont. I L a s t l y , p e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n n o t awarding h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s . Regarding a t t o r n e y f e e s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t : "Although P e t i t i o n e r Beverly s e e k s h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s h e r e i n , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e income of P e t i t i o n e r Beverly and t h e property d i s t r i b u t i o n ordered herein, t h a t e a c h p a r t y i s a b l e t o pay h i s / h e r own a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s and i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s / h e r own a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s i n c u r r e d h e r e i n . " Based on t h i s f i n d i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d e a c h p a r t y t o pay h i s o r h e r own a t t o r n e y f e e s . P e t i t i o n e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s improper d e t e r m i n a t i o n of n e t worth and improper p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n n e c e s s i t a t e s r e v e r s a l of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n n o t t o award a t t o r n e y f e e s t o B e v e r l y T e f f t . I n l i g h t of t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o remand r e g a r d i n g t h e i s s u e s of m a r i t a l e s t a t e n e t worth and d i s t r i b u t i o n , we b e l i e v e i t b e s t t o v a c a t e t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e g a r d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s and l e a v e i t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a s t o whether m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s o r d e r i s n e c e s s a r y following rehearing i n accordance with t h i s opinion. I n summary we a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c r e e a s i t r e l a t e s t o c h i l d support. W e r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on (1) f a i l u r e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e f o r payment of t h e home mortgage, ( 2 ) f a i l u r e t o value a l l marital a s s e t s , f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e n e t w o r t h , and, (3) (4) failure to consider t h e husband's considerably g r e a t e r opportunity f o r a c c u m u l a t i o n of f u t u r e a s s e t s . The m a t t e r i s remanded f o r h e a r i n g i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s opinion. We concur:

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.