MARRIAGE OF CREON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-56 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ELEANOR ANNIE CREON, Petitioner and Respondent, VS . EUGENE EARL CREON, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lincoln Honorable Robert C. Holter, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Moore and Doran, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Ann German, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: August 27, 1981 lQ41 Decided : ' Clerk The c o u r t v a l u e d and d i s t r i b u t e d t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e p a r - t i e s as f o l l o w s : TO t h e Wife: $ 65,900.00 Farm P r o p e r t y , L i n c o l n Co. R e s i d e n c e , 2 1 1 Nevada 12,000.00 4,500.00 J o h n Deere T r a c t o r Mower, C o n d i t i o n e r 1,800.00 Bailer 100.00 500.00 1 2 ' J o h n Deere P l o w Bailer, Elevator 65.00 T r u c k Snow P l o w 500.00 S t . R e g i s S t o c k , e x c e p t "Bonus S t o c k " 3,000.00 1971 Chrysler 250.00 1 5 Head L i v e s t o c k 5,000.00 $ 93,615-00 TOTAL To t h e Husband: MC-40 C r a w l e r M. M. Tractor 2 Farm T r a c t o r s C a r p e n t r y and M e c h a n i c s T o o l s B o a t Motors, C h a i n Saws, e t c . 1 9 7 7 Dodge T r u c k 1970 C h r y s l e r 1 9 4 0 Dodge T r u c k 1937 C h r y s l e r I m p e r i a l 5 t h Wheel T r a i l e r Misc. * , A n t i q u e O u t b o a r d M o t o r s , 32/20 P i s t o l , 3 Cameras, Oak T a b l e and D i s t i n c t l y P e r s o n a l Items TOTAL $15,275.00 The c o u r t made t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y i n l i e u o f maint e n a n c e and o r d e r e d t h a t e a c h p a r t y b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s own attorney fees. On a p p e a l t h e h u s b a n d r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e marital p r o p e r t y and w h e t h e r t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t are s u p p o r t e d b y s u f f i c i e n t evidence. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e husband c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r o p e r t y is i n e q u i t a b l e and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d to t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n h i s s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e s u p p o r t o f h i s f a m i l y and i m p r o v e m e n t s to t h e p r o p e r t y . The h u s b a n d a l s o m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e v a l u a t i o n o f c e r t a i n items o f C h i e f ~ u s t i c eF r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. Mr. The m a r r i a g e o f t h e p a r t i e s was d i s s o l v e d b y d e c r e e e n t e r e d December 3 1 , 1 9 7 9 . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p r o p e r t y d i v i - s i o n , m a i n t e n a n c e and a t t o r n e y f e e s was r e s e w e d f o r a h e a r i n g w h i c h was h e l d o n J u l y 1 4 and 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f L i n c o l n C o u n t y e n 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 j u d g m e n t o n October 8 , 1980. The h u s b a n d a p p e a l s from t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a common l a w m a r r i a g e commencing i n 1951 a f t e r t h e husband o b t a i n e d a d i s s o l u t i o n of a p r i o r marriage. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e p a r t i e s d a t e s from 1 9 4 7 . They h a v e r a i s e d o n e c h i l d who w a s a n a d u l t a t t i m e o f t r i a l . The w i f e a c q u i r e d a r e s i d e n c e i n L i b b y , Montana, d u r i n g h e r p r i o r m a r r i a g e which was d i s s o l v e d i n 1 9 4 7 . I n 1949, a farm of 79 acres was p u r c h a s e d f o r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f $ 5 , 0 0 0 . d e e d is d a t e d June 2 3 , 1 9 4 9 and i s to " E l e a n o r A. woman o f L i b b y , Montana." The Huffman, s i n g l e During t h e m a r r i a g e t h e p a r t i e s r e s i d e d o n t h e f a r m and b o t h worked o n it and c o n t r i b u t e d to i t . I n 1 9 7 1 t h e husband b o u g h t a t r a i l e r h o u s e i n L i b b y and p r i m a r i l y 1i v e d t h e r e t h e r e a f t e r . D u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e t h e husband w a s employed a t S t . R e g i s Lumber Company, f o r m e r l y J . N e i l s Lumber Company. He r e t i r e d in 1 9 8 0 and r e c e i v e s a p e n s i o n o f $596 p e r month and S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s o f $519 p e r month. The husband d e v o t e d h i s wages d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e t o t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e f a m i l y and t o i m p r o v e m e n t s o n t h e f a r m and t h e h o u s e i n L i b b y . S i n c e 1 9 7 8 t h e w i f e h a s sup- p o r t e d h e r s e l f by o c c a s i o n a l e m p l o y m e n t , s a l e of t i m b e r from t h e f a r m and r a i s i n g c a t t l e o n t h e f a r m . She r e c e i v e s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $300 p e r m o n t h , and r e n t from t h e h o u s e i n L i b b y of $100 p e r month. The c o u r t found s h e c o u l d e x p e c t a n income of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $3,000 to $5,000 from t h e farm. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d s h e d e s i r e d t o s t a y on t h e f a r m and make it p r o f i t a b l e . The h u s b a n d had no d e s i r e t o k e e p t h e f a r m , b u t wanted i t s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d . p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y is i n e r r o r . I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n , t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t d o e s n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w is w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y w i t h o u t employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s j u d g m e n t or 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 r e s u l t i n g i n substantial injustice. (1981) 1 Mont . , S e e I n re t h e M a r r i a g e o f S t r a t f o r d 6 3 1 P.2d ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 2 1 6 , 570 P.2d 296, 38 S t . R e p . 1 0 9 3 ; Z e l l v. Zell 33. C The ~ i s t r i c t o u r t e x e r c i s e d r e a s o n e d j u d g m e n t i n d i v i d i n g t h e p r o p e r t y as s e t f o r t h a b o v e , t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e f a c t o r s i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. The h u s b a n d h a s a n i n c a n e o f $13,380 p e r y e a r , w h i l e t h e wife r e c e i v e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $7,200 p e r y e a r from v a r i o u s s o u r c e s i n c l u d i n g t h e f a r m . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t a n award o f t h e f a r m to t h e w i f e would e n a b l e h e r t o meet h e r e x p e n s e s w i t h o u t m a i n t e n a n c e from t h e h u s b a n d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s w e l l aware o f t h e d e b t s o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e e n c u m b r a n c e s o n t h e p r o p e r t y awarded t o e a c h . W i t h o u t t h e farm a n d t h e i n c o m e , however s m a l l , t h a t it p r o v i d e s f o r t h e w i f e , s h e could not support herself. The i m p r o v e m e n t s o n t h e f a r m a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y d e t e r i o r a t e d and t h e l a n d is n o t s u i t a b l e f o r development. N o s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e r e s u l t e d b y t h e award of t h e farm t o t h e w i f e . The h u s b a n d c o n t e s t s t h e v a l u a t i o n g i v e n by t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t t o t h e f i f t h w h e e l t r a i l e r , t h e 1 9 7 7 Dodge t r u c k and t h e tools. The h u s b a n d would v a l u e t h e t r a i l e r a t $0 d u e to a $ 5 , 5 0 0 e n c u m b r a n c e , t h e Dodge t r u c k a t $ 1 , 5 0 0 and t h e tools a t $ 4 0 0 . The t r i a l c o u r t c l e a r l y d i d c o n s i d e r t h e o u t s t a n d i n g d e b t s s e c u r e d b y t h e t r a i l e r and Dodge t r u c k . F u r t h e r , t h e husband p r e s e n t e d n o v a l u a t i o n o f t h e Dodge t r u c k t o t h e c o u r t b e l o w and h e may n o t on a p p e a l a s s e r t a f i g u r e n o t g i v e n f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s consideration. The v a l u e a s s i g n e d to t h e t r u c k is r e a s o n a b l e . The w i f e v a l u e d t h e t o o l s a t $ 3 , 0 0 0 and t h e husband d i s a g r e e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s t r i e r of f a c t d e c i d e d t o a c c e p t t h e w i f e ' s v a l u a t i o n as t o t h e t o o l s , and t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l s t a n d u n l e s s it is c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . no error. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. We find The t r i a l c o u r t a c c e p t e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s v a l u a t i o n s of s e v e r a l o t h e r items o f p r o p e r t y i n l i e u o f t h e w i f e ' s lower estimates. j udgmen t T h e s e d e c i s i o n s are l e f t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t l s . Af f i r m e d . Chief J u s t i c e W e 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.