MARRIAGE OF TURNER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 83-179 I N TI-IE SUPREME COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA T983 I N THE MARRIAGE OF WAUNETA E . TURNER, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , and VERNON N. TURNER, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y o f L e w i s & C l a r k , T h e H o n o r a b l e G o r d o n R. B e n n e t t , Judge p r e s i d i n g . APPEAL FROPI: COUNSEL O F RECORD: For Appellant: Skedd, A s h l e y , M c C a b e & Weingartner; J . M a y o A s h l e y , Helena, 14ontana For Respondent : John C o b b , A u g u s t a , Montana . S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: /=- A, a +. P $ $@ , & clerk A u g u s t 18, 1 9 8 3 October 17, 1983 Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the Opinion of the Court. Vernon N. Turner (husband) appeals from the judgment of the District Court, Lewis and Clark County, giving him only his personal possessions in a dissolution action brought by Wanneta Turner (wife). We affirm. The husband and wife married in 1972. their 50's when they married. They were both in The wife owned property near Lincoln, Montana, in her own name, given to her by her first husband. Mr. Turner was a commercial pilot when they married, and continued to fly when they moved to Lincoln. The Turners lived on the property for approximately 10 years. The wife claims the husband made no monetary nonmonetary contribution to the Lincoln property. or She claims the husband did not give her money for household expenses and failed to help maintain the condition of the house and outbuildings. The wife alleges she had to sell some of her personal property at the husband's insistence. Most of the proceeds from the sales were used for the husband's flying expenses. The husband claims he did make monetary and nonmonetary contibutions to the property. He cites various duties he performed around snow-plowing the the property, access road, such and as clearing cutting brush, thousands of dollars of firewood to heat the home. After dissolution. a hearing, the trial court granted the The court awarded to the wife all property owned by her before the marriage. The trial court granted the husband his personal belongings. This appeal follows. Two issues are raised by this appeal: 1. Did the trial court properly find that the husband made no contribution to the marriage which would justify apportionment of the wife's previously owned home? 2. Did the District Court err in not making a finding of the net value of the marital assets, namely the Lincoln property? Upon consideration of the evidence and testimony, the District Court found that the husband's position in the marriage was that of a "parasitic freeloader" who victimized the wife for the period therefore ruled that of their marriage. the wife was entitled The court to outright ownership of all the real property at her house near Lincoln. Disposition of property in a dissolution proceeding is governed by section 40-4-202, MCA, which provides that the court shall "equitably apportion" the property "belonging to either or both, however and whenever acquired." The statute also provides that in disposing of property previously owned by one spouse, consideration must be given to "contributions of the other spouse" including the nonmonetary contribution of a homemaker and the extent to which such contributions have "facilitated the maintenance of this property." 40-4-202, MCA. To conclude that the husband was not entitled to any claim against the Lincoln real property, it is necessary to find that he made - contribution equitably no apportionment of that property. justifying The District Court's finding that the husband was a parasitic freeloader victimizing the wife is just such a finding. We turn now to whether that finding was justified. This Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court and will not alter a judgment unless it finds a clear abuse of (19761, 171 Mont. discretion. Eschenburg v. 247, 250, 557 P.2d Eschenburg 1014, 1016. After considering the record in a light most favorable to the respondent, this Court must find substantial facts supporting the discretionary judgment of the trial court. It is difficult absol-utely no equitable conceive of a contribution is made by one meaning 40-4-202, MCA, to of marriage where spouse. The contribution envisioned however, is an effort of a by section spouse which substantially aids in the accumulation and/or maintenance of the marital estate. The work of a homemaker is just such an effort and is specifically enumerated in the statute. The marital estate would obviously be substantially depleted if these necessary services had to be purchased. But where one spouse's contribution is so minimal that it would not even be self-supporting, that spouse is merely a burden. case, the value of the other spouse's In such a previously owned property results inspite - rather than because of, the of, first spouse's efforts. In this case, the wife was not only the homemaker, but also the chief earner. The husband's annual income was approximately $5,000, much of which was spent by the husband while he was away from the home. bills, with bought the the exception of food and The wife paid all of the the husband's phone clothing, did the cooking, washing, cleaning, and other work to provide for the home. substantial effort of the husband bills, during the The only ten year marriage was to clear snow from the driveway (with the wife's plow), and get wood for the heating of the home (with the wife's help). The District Court need not further substantiate its finding of lack of contribution. The burden is upon the husband to demonstrate his contiribution. He failed to do SO. We hold that under these facts the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the husband made no contribution to the marriage within the meaning of section 40-4-202, MCA. This is not the first case where the non-acquiring spouse has been found to have no interest in previously owned In In re the Marriage of Balsam (1979), 180 Mont. property. 129, 589 P.2d where a 652, this Court upheld such a distribution trial court found that none of the value of non-appreciated stocks was a product of contribution from the marital effort. The failure of the District Court to find the net value of the Lincoln property now becomes harmless. to reemphasize the necessity of such a We take care finding in the equitable apportionment of property in the typical marriage dissolution. The value of the marital assets is important information which determination. should be weighed However in the distribution in this case, the value of the Lincoln property would make no difference. property is worth $30,000 or $130,000, the Whether husband entitled to exactly none of it. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. concur : aiJ--A J* jllw'.,pJg) Chief Justice the is
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.
