MARRIAGE OF NUNNALLY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-457 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1981 I N R THE MARRIAGE O E F EVA L. NUNNALLY, P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t , -vs- RAY L. NUNNALLY, R e s p o n d e n t and A p p e l l a n t . D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f Lake, The H o n o r a b l e James B. W h e e l i s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g , Appeal from: C o u n s e l bf Record: For Appellant: I a n C h r i s t o p h e r s o n , M i s s o u l a , Montana Donald J. Louden, M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r Respondent : C h r i s t i a n , McCurdy, Ingraham, Wold & P e t e r s o n , P o l s o n , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : February 25, Decided : APR &,FJ!? '2 =+ Filed: ?gm 2 198! "I 1981 Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . The w i f e b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g d i s s o l u t i o n of h e r m a r r i a g e , c u s t o d y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d o f t h e p a r t i e s , c h i l d supp o r t and d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l assets. The m a t t e r w a s t r i e d on S e p t e m b e r 26, 1 9 7 9 , b e f o r e t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a jury. The f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t were e n t e r e d o n O c t o b e r 1, 1 9 8 0 , d i s s o l v i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d and c h i l d s u p p o r t to t h e w i f e and dividing the property. The h u s b a n d c h a l l e n g e s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n and v a l u a t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y . The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n K a l i s p e l l , Montana, i n September, 1959. One c h i l d was b o r n as i s s u e o f t h e m a r r i a g e , who a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l was 1 6 y e a r s of a g e . The p a r t i e s a l s o r a i s e d t h e minor c h i l d of t h e husband from a p r i o r m a r r i a g e . P r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e t h e w i f e owned a h o u s e which was u n e n c u m b e r e d , as w e l l as a f e e d s u p p l y b u s i n e s s , h o u s e h o l d f u r n i s h i n g s , a c a r , a t r u c k , and U n i t e d Fund s h a r e s . The h u s b a n d owned o n e c a r , a small bank a c c o u n t , and a V e t e r a n ' s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y which w a s h e a v i l y encumbered. The p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e r e p a y m e n t of t h e V.A. p o l i c y loan during t h e i r marriage. D u r i n g t h e e a r l y y e a r s of t h e m a r r i a g e b o t h p a r t i e s worked i n t h e f e e d s u p p l y b u s i n e s s u n t i l t h e b u s i n e s s was s o l d i n 1 9 6 4 . The h u s b a n d worked a t s e v e r a l odd j o b s , electrician. A t t h e t i m e of t h e n began a career as an t r i a l h e was employed a s a j o u r - neyman wireman f o r e m a n a t $ 1 2 . 8 0 a n h o u r . I n 1969 t h e wife began working f o r t h e S t a t e L i q u o r S t o r e i n P o l s o n , where s h e is c u r r e n t l y employed a s t h e s t o r e m a n a g e r . When judgment was e n t e r e d , t h e w i f e w a s 6 1 y e a r s of a g e and t h e husband w a s 5 6 y e a r s of age. The h o u s e was e x t e n s i v e l y r e m o d e l e d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e of the parties. I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e h u s b a n d ' s p r o m i s e t o e x c a - v a t e a b a s e m e n t and r e m o d e l t h e h o u s e , t h e w i f e conveyed a j o i n t t e n a n c y i n t e r e s t i n t h e house t o t h e husband. The h u s b a n d c o n t r i b u t e d l a b o r o v e r a p e r i o d of s e v e n y e a r s b u t had n o t c o m p l e t e d t h e work as o f t h e d a t e of commencement o f t h i s a c t i o n . The w i f e o b t a i n e d a l o a n and u s e d t h e p r o c e e d s p l u s s a v i n g s of t h e p a r t i e s t o h a v e t h e work d o n e by o t h e r s . The a p p r a i s a l v a l u e o f t h e r e m o d e l e d home was f o u n d t o be $ 3 8 , 5 0 0 and t h e t o t a l c o s t o f r e m o d e l i n g was $ 2 6 , 7 5 7 . 2 0 e x c l u s i v e of t h e p a r t i e s ' own l a b o r . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded t h e h o u s e t o t h e w i f e . The p a r t i e s owned o t h e r p r o p e r t y w h i c h t h e c o u r t d i v i d e d b e t w e e n them. The w i f e r e c e i v e d t h e 1 9 5 9 F o r d t r u c k , t h e 1970 P o n t i a c , a l l t h e f u r n i s h i n g s i n t h e house, t h e funds i n h e r c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t , a l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y ( t h e "Empire B u i l d e r 1 ' ) , a n d s h a r e s o f s t o c k i n t h e L i f e I n s u r a n c e Company o f t h e Northwest. The h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d t h e 1 9 7 1 C h e v r o l e t v a n , t h e t o o l s w h i c h r e l a t e t o h i s o c c u p a t i o n , t h e V.A. l i f e insurance p o l i c y , and c e r t a i n u n c a s h e d p a y r o l l c h e c k s e a r n e d by him. The r e m a i n i n g t o o l s owned by t h e p a r t i e s were t o be d i v i d e d by them o n a n e q u a l b a s i s , and i f t h e y were u n a b l e t o d o so a master w o u l d be a p p o i n t e d . C h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount of $150 p e r month was awarded t o t h e w i f e . In reaching the conclusions the District Court s p e c i f i c a l l y considered the ages, e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l of t h e p a r t i e s . s k i l l s and The p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n was i n l i e u of maintenance. The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n t h e v a l u a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and t h a t c e r t a i n f i n d i n g s were n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e f a i l u r e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t w o r t h o f t h e p a r t i e s and t o a s s i g n c u r r e n t v a l u e s t o t h e motor v e h i c l e s , t o o l s and c o i n s owned by t h e p a r t i e s was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The h u s b a n d f u r t h 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 a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y and e x c e e d e d t h e b o u n d s o f r e a s o n i n d i s t r i b u t i n g o v e r 8 0 p e r c e n t of t h e assets t o t h e wife. T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d o n numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t m u s t make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t f r o m w h i c h t h e r e c a n be d e t e r m i n e d a n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s . o f Herron (1980), Mont Downs v. Downs ( 1 9 7 9 ) , . , Mont 6 0 8 P.2d 9 7 , 37 S t . R e p . . 5 7 7 ; V i v i a n v. V i v i a n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , St.Rep. 1359. I n re M a r r i a g e See e.g. , Mont 592 P.2d . , 387; 938, 36 St.Rep. 5 8 3 P.2d 1072, 3 5 While t h e D i s t r i c t Court indeed f a i l e d i n t h i s case t o make a s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g o f n e t w o r t h , t h e f i n d i n g s as a w h o l e are s u f f i c i e n t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t w o r t h and t o d e c i d e whether the d i s t r i b u t i o n was equitable. A l l o f t h e major a s s e t s were a s s i g n e d v a l u e s by t h e c o u r t , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e mtor v e h i c l e s , t h e t o o l s , and t h e s i l v e r coins. T h i s omission does not n e c e s s i t a t e a r e v e r s a l i n v i e w o f t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e s e a s s e t s . Kuntz ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , S e e Kuntz v . 5 9 3 P.2d 4 1 , 3 6 S t . R e p . 662. The 1 9 5 9 F o r d t r u c k w a s a c q u i r e d by t h e w i f e w i t h r e s o u r c e s t r a c e a b l e t o p r o p e r t y s h e owned p r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e . t r u c k o b v i o u s l y had n o m i n a l v a l u e . Due t o i t s a g e t h e The 1 9 7 0 P o n t i a c and 1 9 7 1 C h e v r o l e t van were a p p a r e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t t o h a v e n o m i n a l and e q u a l v a l u e , and e a c h p a r t y r e c e i v e d o n e c a r . All o f t h e t o o l s n e c e s s a r y t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s b u s i n e s s were a w a r d e d t o h i m , and t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e t o o l s were t o be d i v i d e d e q u a l l y by e i t h e r t h e p a r t i e s or a s p e c i a l master. Considering the lengthy i t e m i z e d l i s t o f t o o l s a t t a c h e d t o t h e f i n d i n g s , t h i s scheme was a more l o g i c a l and p r a c t i c a l s o l u t i o n t h a n a t t e m p t i n g t o p l a c e a v a l u e on e a c h t o o l . The c o i n s were s o l d p r i o r t o t r i a l b e c a u s e t h e w i f e n e e d e d t h e money f o r h o u s e h o l d e x p e n s e s , and t h e r e f o r e were n o t a m a r i t a l a s s e t a t t h e t i m e of j u d g m e n t . e r i c k s e n v. St.Rep. Fredericksen (1980), Mont. , See Fred- 6 0 5 P.2d 1 1 3 5 , 37 191. The f i n d i n g s o f f a c t as a w h o l e are s u f f i c i e n t l y c o m p l e t e t o e n a b l e t h i s Court to r e v i e w t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n . The h o u s e , a p p r a i s e d a t $ 3 8 , 5 0 0 and encumbered by a $ 1 3 , 0 0 0 l o a n e x e c u t e d s o l e l y by t h e w i f e , had a n e t v a l u e of $ 2 5 , 5 0 0 . i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s and s t o c k had a t o t a l v a l u e of furnishings, $11,588. fact. The h o u s e h o l d T h e s e f i g u r e s a r e e a s i l y computed f r o m t h e f i n d i n g s o f The h u s b a n d r e c e i v e d p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y w o r t h $ 6 , 1 5 5 , while t h e w i f e r e c e i v e d p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y w o r t h $ 5 , 4 3 2 and r e a l p r o p e r t y w i t h a n e q u i t y of $ 2 5 , 5 0 0 . Much o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l c o n c e r n e d t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of each p a r t y t o t h e remodeling of t h e house. It a p p e a r s t h a t a p p e l l a n t is c l a i m i n g t h a t he made a n e q u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e improvement o f t h e h o u s e and t o t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of t h e o t h e r a s s e t s and t h a t t h e r e f o r e h e d e s e r v e d o n e - h a l f marital estate. A 50/50 d i s t r i b u t i o n is n o t r e q u i r e d w h e r e t h e r e s u l t would be i n e q u i t a b l e . ( 1980 Mon t 1 of t h e . , I n re M a r r i a g e of H e r r o n 6 0 8 P.2d 9 7 , 37 S t . R e p . 387. The c r i t e r i a t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e a s s e t s a r e s e t f o r t h i n sect i o n 40-4-202, MCA. The 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 i n t h i s case r e f l e c t a c a r e f u l and c o n s c i e n t i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the appropriate factors. The c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y f o u n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had a g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y t o a c q u i r e a r e s i d e n c e i n t h e future. The c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t b e c a u s e of t h e w i f e ' s a g e and l a c k o f s k i l l s , b e c a u s e c u s t o d y was awarded t o t h e w i f e , and b e c a u s e t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n was i n l i e u o f m a i n t e n a n c e , t h e h o u s e and i t s f u r n i s h i n g s s h o u l d be awarded t o h e r . Both p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e m a r r i a g e b u t t h e w i f e had a g r e a t e r need f o r t h e assets. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s f a r r e a c h i n g d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s o l v i n g p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n s and i t s j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d u n l e s s a c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n is shown. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 33. Z e l l v. Z e l l Where it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court conscientiously considered the appropriate s t a t u - t o r y c r i t e r i a , t h e j u d g m e n t w i l l be a f f i r m e d . W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e d i s p u t e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , a r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t e a c h f i n d i n g was s u p p o r t e d by t h e evidence. F i n d i n g s of f a c t s h o u l d n o t be s e t a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and due r e g a r d s h o u l d be g i v e n t o t h e c o u r t ' s o p p o r t u n i t y t o judge t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s . 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. Rule T h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t e r r o r s i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e findings. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s af f irmed. Chief J u s t i c e \

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.