PALMER v PALMER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-281 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 CONSTANCE A. PALNER, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert A. Palmer, Plaintiff and Respondent, WILLIAM J. PALMER and MILDRED PALMER, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, In and for the County of Park Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Moore, Rice, O'Connell & Refling, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Douglas R. Drysdale, Bozernan, Montana Submitted on briefs: October 14, 1982 Decided: January 14, 1983 Filed: JAN 14 1983 Clerk - J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr. of t h e C o u r t . Mr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o r d e r i n g t h e p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s be s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s d i s t r i b u t e d . Constance Palmer, r e s p o n d e n t , i s t h e former w i f e o f R o b e r t Palmer, d e c e a s e d . R o b e r t and h i s b r o t h e r , William Palmer, a p p e l l a n t , o p e r a t e d a r a n c h l o c a t e d on t h e p r o p e r t y a t issue. S i n c e t h e d e a t h of R o b e r t , i n November 1981, William and h i s s o n Brad c o n t i n u e d t o r u n t h e b u s i n e s s . A f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h i s a c t i o n , W i l l i a m q u i t c l a i m e d h i s i n t e r e s t t o h i s w i f e , Mildred Palmer, a p p e l l a n t . Constance f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t f o r p a r t i t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y owned by Constance and William c o u l d n o t be p a r t i t i o n e d and s h o u l d be s o l d . William's combined answer and motion r e q u e s t e d t h a t Mildred be a p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n , d e n i e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y s h o u l d be s o l d , r e q u e s t e d a p a r t i t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y , and moved f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e s . A f t e r t h i s h e a r i n g was h e l d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t p a r t i t i o n o f t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y c o u l d n o t be made w i t h o u t m a t e r i a l i n j u r y and p r e j u d i c e t o t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s , o r d e r e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y be s o l d and a p p o i n t e d a r e f e r e e . Mildred and W i l l i a m have a p p e a l e d t h i s judgment. The s o l e i s s u e i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g t h e s a l e of p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o p a r t i t i o n i n t h i s issue. W e f i n d no e r r o r and a f f i r m . S e c t i o n 70-29-202(1), MCA, l i m i t s p a r t i t i o n by s a l e and d i v i s i o n of p r o c e e d s t o s i t u a t i o n s where " t h e p r o p e r t y o r any p a r t i s s o s i t u a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i t i o n c a n n o t be made without great prejudice to the owners. . ." Appellants contend that the evidence adduced is insufficient to support a finding and conclusion that the sale of property is proper. Appellants believe that the evidence supports a contrary determination and refer to testimony by the appraiser to the effect that physical partition of the properties was possible and that the division proposed by appellants was fair. We have reviewed the record and find substantial credible evidence to support the District Court's findings and conclusions. Through cross-examination, counsel for respondent exposed several inadequacies in the appellant's proposed division. Those noted by the court in its order and substantiated by the record included restrictions on access, unavailability of water and no provision in the valuation for different uses of the properties. Presented with conflicting testimony, the District Court thus arrived at the determination that in this instance partition in kind cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners. That determination cannot be set aside unless it is clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. The judgment is affirmed. We concur: %G J,QU&~ Chief Justice It is not.

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.