CONVERSE v CONVERSE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-425 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1982 I N R THE MARRIAGE O E F SUSAN D. CONVERSE, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vsEVERETT C. CONVERSE, Respondent a n d 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 D i s t r i c t , I n arid f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , The H o n o r a b l e Diane G. B a r z , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: F e l t a n d M a r t i n , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent: Lynauyh, F i t z g e r a l d & S k a g g s , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided: March 11, 1982 May 1 3 , 1982 Mr. J u s t l c e Gene B. is This D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n l o n of t h e C o u r t . an appeal from a judgment apportioning marital a s s e t s i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h Judic i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana, i n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of Yellowstone. On A p r i l 7 , tioned the 1 9 8 0 , t h e w i f e , S u s a n D. Court District Converse, p e t i - a dissolution for of marriage. The p a r t i e s were u n a b l e t o a g r e e o n a p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n b u t d i d allow t h e c o u r t t o e n t e r a d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n o n In its decree the court reserved the r i g h t t o May 27, 1 9 8 0 . hear, at a pleadings, later hearing F e b r u a r y 26, 1981. by the the division of marital property. An on including ev i d e n t i a r y on apportioning the the other fact, marital matters remaining On A p r i l its f i n d i n g s of issued all date, 14, issues 1981, the conclusions of assets. raised The commenced District Court law and o r d e r , court awarded the h u s b a n d a n e t amount o f $ 3 8 , 2 3 0 and t h e w i f e a n e t amount o f Judgment w a s e n t e r e d $33,871. Converse, h u s b a n d , E v e r e t t C. The parties were Billings, Montana. marriage, b u t t h e husband on A p r i l were had a previous marriage and the on no May 13, 1972, in children born of the t w o c h i l d r e n from a p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e whom he h e l p e d s u p p o r t , from 1981, now a p p e a l s . married There 24, who and t h e w i f e had o n e c h i l d resided with the parties throughout t h e d u r a t i o n of t h e i 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 worked as a b a r t e n d e r and w a i t r e s s . At the husband's request, t h e wife q u i t her j o b a f t e r t h e y w e r e m a r r i e d and worked w i t h t h e h u s b a n d the construction business, ~naker. Since the divorce, kennel the b u s i n e s s and wife has as a returned in home- to h e r former occupation and makes approximately $500 p e r month. The w i f e e n t e r e d t h e m a r r i a g e i n p o s s e s s i o n of t w o h o r s e s , t - a c k g e a r and a c a r . From the marriage she retained the t h e c a r , h o u s e h o l d items, k e n n e l s and a rnotor home. horses, The husband was a f o r e m a n i n a c o n s t r u c t . i o n company when t-he p a r t i e s m a r r i e d . Later, h e became a p a r t n e r i n a c o n s t r u c t i o n company and i n 1 9 7 8 , t h e p a r t - i e s s t a r t e d t h e i r own c o n s t r u c t i o n b u s i n e s s . with The h u s b a n d e n t e r e d t h e m a r r i a g e p e r s o n a l a f f e c t s and a f u l l a r r a y o f From t h e m a r r i a g e h e r e t a i n e d t h e c o n s t . r u c t . i o n company. tion business, and all carpentry tools. t h e t o o l s and a s s e t s o f He has continued i n the construc- t.he D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t-hat t h e h u s b a n d h a s t h e p o t . e n t i a 1 t o e a r n somewhere bet-ween $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 and $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 p e r y e a r . The o n l y 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 was a twenty-acre t r a c t of by t h e D i s t r i c t husband, unimproved p r o p e r t y , Court. provided he v a l u e d a t $45,000 T h i s p r o p e r t y was awarded pay the wife $22,500 or, to the alt-erna- t i v e l y , t h e p r 0 p e r t . y was t o b e s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d e q u a l l y b e t w e e n h u s b a n d and w i f e . The i s s u e s r a i s e d by t.he h u s b a n d on a p p e a l a r e : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by a d m i t - t - i n g h e a r s a y evidence? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t . Court. e r r in its valuation of the marital assets? 3. fact, Did t h e e v i d e n c e f a i l t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s o f c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w and o r d e r e n t e r e d by t.he D i s t r i c t Court? The husband ' s cont-ention that the District e r r e d b y a d m i t t i n g h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e is n o t m e r i t o r i o u s . Court. The alleged the hearsay court evidence allowed the of consisted wife to two instances where t e s t i f y as t o t h e v a l u e o f c e r t a i n marital assets. In the f i r s t value She of had some instance, Brittany based the the wife testified S p a n i e l s from t h e appraisal on her as t o the parties' own kennel. experience in o p e r a t i n g k e n n e l s and o n a l e t t e r , e n t e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e f o r from a M r . i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes, knowledgeable about Brittany G l e n n who was a p p a r e n t l y Spaniels in general and f a m i l i a r with her dogs s p e c i f i c a l l y . The second to alleged testified as the value husband's possession. She error of occurred certain testified when house that the plans the wife in the house p l a n s w e r e wort12 a b o u t $50 e a c h a n d t h a t s h e had a r r i v e d a t that v a l u e a £ t e r c o n v e r s i n g w i t h numerous i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n the construction business. i t was o n l y u s e d While t h e l e t t e r is indeed h e a r s a y , for illustrative matter being purposes asserted. and Rule not for the truth of 8 0 1 ( c ) , Mont.K.Evid. the Also, Montana h a s a l w a y s a l l o w e d o w n e r s t o t e s t i f y a s t o t h e v a l u e of their animals. ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 31 Am. J u r . 2d ". . . Dutton 54, v. 438 P.2d Rocky 674. Mountain Further, E x p e r t and O p i n i o n E v i d e n c e , S Phosphates as s t a t e d a t 137 at 685: P u r e l y h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e as t o t h e v a l u e of a c h a t t e l h a s been h e l d i n s u f f i c i e n t a s b a s i s f o r t e s t i m o n y p r e d i c a t e d t h e r e o n by t h e o w n e r , b u t i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d i n p a r t f r o m o t h e r s h a s been h e l d t o be u n o b j e c t i o n a b l e , and t h e p r i c i n g o f s i m i l a r a r t i c l e s seems t o b e a n a p p r o v e d way o f o b t a i n i n g knowledge. M a r r i a g e of . . " Finally, Schwartz ( 1979 ) as this , - Mont Court held . -, in 602 P.2d In re 175, 177, 36 S t . R e p . 1980, " [ e l r r o r may n o t b e p r e d i c a t e d upon a r u l i n g which a d m i t s o r e x c l u d e s e v i d e n c e u n l e s s it a f f e c t s a substant-ial evidence right. of the object-ing party." the Here, t h a t was a d m i t t - e d was h a r m l e s s e r r o r and d i d not " s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t " t h e r i g h t s o f t h e husband. The v a l u a t i o n o f Court. was t h e m a r i t - a 1 a s s e t s by t h e D i s t r i c t proper. Levandowski This Court ( 1981) , - Mont . held in , - 630 P.2d Levandowski 239, v. 3 8 St..Rep. 10U2, t h a t . : "A 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 discretion 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 judgment 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 i s shown The t e s t f o r reviewing the District C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n is: Did t.he D i s t . r i c t C o u r t i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n act a r b i t r a r i l y wit-hout employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment., o r exceed t h e bounds o f r e a s o n i n view o f a l l of the circumstances? [Citations omitted. 1 " 630 P.2d a t 241. ... See a l s o : Zell v. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. Zell 216, I n r e t h e M a r r i a g e o f Brown ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. We Mont a l s o held . -, 614 P.2d i n Dickerson v. 521, 37 S t . R e p . 570 P.2d 417, Dickerson 33; 587 P.2d (1980), - 1286, t h a t : "The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a s t h e t r i e r o f f a c t i n t h i s trial without a jury, accepted the value o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t and r e j e c t e d t h e e x p e r t ' s As valuation. This is n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . we e x p l a i n e d i n B i e g a l k e , I . the t r i e r of t h e f a c t s has t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o g i v e whatever w e i g h t h e sees f i t t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e e x p e r t from 0 t o l o o % . ' B i e g a l k e , 1 7 2 Mont. Unless a finding of a t 317, 564 P.2d a t 990. f a c t i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , i t c a n n o t be s e t a s i d e by t h i s Court. See Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P." 614 P.2d a t 524. .. The erred husband ' s because it chose c l e a r l y without merit contention that cont-ention the t-hat. t h e wife's in l i g h t of District Court. appraisals over h i s the above r u l i n g s . t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d because is The it valued t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y a t $45,U00 by a v e r a g i n g t h e two a p p r a i s a l s is also w i t h o u t m e r i t . - Mont. , - k a r r i a g e of St.Rep. 5 9 1 P.2d Jensen 1109. figure of S e e , I n Re M a r r i a g e o f Kaasa ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1110, ( 1981) , review A $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 was n o t 36 St.Rep. - Mont of the . -, record 425; In 6 3 1 P.2d reveals Re 700, t.hat the 38 the c h o s e n a r b i t r a r i l y and was w e l l s u p p o r t e d by t.he e v i d e n c e . There the was sufficient District. C o u r t ' s and o r d e r . (1981)I evidence findings of present-ed fact., to support conclusions of law I n t h e r e c e n t d e c i s i o n o f S t ~ r a t f o r dv . S t r a t f o r d - Mont . , 6 3 1 P.2d 296, 38 St..Rep. 1093, we stated: " 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 of law provide a f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e c o u r t ' s judgment-. M a r r i a g e o f B a r r o n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont.. T h i s f o u n d a t i o n need n o t 1 6 1 , 580 P.2d 936. consist of a multitude of evidentiary fact-s, but. t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t m u s t s e t f o r t h a r e c o r d a t i o n o f t h e e s s e n t i a l and d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t s upon w h i c h t h e c o u r t r e s t e d i t s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w a n d w i t h o u t w h i c h t.he j u d g m e n t would l a c k s u p p o r t . J o n e s v. J o n e s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont., 620 P.2d 8 5 0 , 37 S t . R e p . 1 9 7 3 . " 631 P.2d a t 298. When a p p l y i n g t h i s s t . a n d a r d t o t h e c a s e a t . h a n d , is c l e a r t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s o f fact, conclusions of it. law and o r d e r were w e l l s u p p o r t - e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t a d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d i s set. o u t i n I n re t h e Marriage o f P e t e r s o n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 636 P.2d roughly 821, a 38 St.Rep. $600,000 1723. difference in - Iqon t In Peterson, the various there I was appraisers' v a l u e s and w e s t a t e d : "In addition, t h e court should s t a t e its reasons f o r determining valuation Howe v e r , w e w i l l uphold a p r o p e r e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t - i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t and i f a reasonable explanation e x i s t s f o r adopting t h e l o w e r v a l u e , it s h o u l d be s t a t e d . " 636 P.2d a t 8 2 4 . . .. .- I n t h i s c a s e , w h i l e t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y set. o u t a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r s e t t i n g t h e v a l u a t i o n a t $45,000 f o r the sufficient, Court's land, without explanation, figure. at. t r i a l w a s the evidence presented Both to support appraisers the t.estif ied District that the v a l u a t . i o n t-hey were g i v i n g c o u l d v a r y up o r down somewhat depending on v a r i o u s Court chose explanation a factors. figure in The f a c t the middle is e a s i l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e that the D i s t r i c t without from t h e further evidence and was t h e r e f o r e not. e r r o n e o u s . that. t.he distributing the p r o p e r t y . She r a i s e s t h i s i s s u e n o t a s a c r o s s - a p p e l l a n t but The District instead t.he wife, Court respondent erred attempts to by not invoke herein, equitably Rule 14, alleges M.R.App.Civ.P. We cannot. r e v i e w t h e i s s u e because r e s p o n d e n t f a i l s t o p r o p e r l y invoke the use of Rule 14, ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. Tindall 1763, we M.R.App.Civ.P. - 635 , P.2d In Johnson v. 266, 38 St.Kep. held: "Although Rule 14 p r o v i d e s f o r review o f m a t t e r s by cross-assignment o f e r r o r , t h i s does not eliminate the necessity f o r crossa p p e a l b y a r e s p o n d e n t who s e e k s r e v i e w o f r u l i n g s o n m a t t . e r s s e p a r a t e and d i s t - i n c t f r o m t h o s e sought to be reviewed by t h e a p p e l l a n t . F r a n c i s c o v . F r a n c i s c o ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 0 Mont. 468, A r e s p o n d e n t who h a s 470, 1 9 1 P . 2 d 3 1 7 , 319. n o t c r o s s - a p p e a l e d may n o t s e e k a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e amount i n v o l v e d more f a v o r a b l e t o him t h a n t , h a t made by t h e c o u r t b e l o w . Mechanics U n i v e r s a l J o i n t Co. v. Culhane ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 299 U.S. 5 1 , 58, 57 S . C t . 8 1 , 84-85, 8 1 L.Ed. 33, 38; 5 Am.Jur.2d A p p e a l and E r r o r , S 707." 6 3 5 P.2d a t 268. The affirmed. judgment of t.he D i s t r i c t Court is hereby We concur: Chief Justice

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.