Arundel v. Arundel, No. 48391.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1979
• Docket Number: No. 48391.
• Citation: 281 NW 2d 663
• Parties: Sharon S. ARUNDEL, Petitioner, v. Edward M. ARUNDEL, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

281 N.W.2d 663 (1979)

Sharon S. ARUNDEL, Petitioner, v. Edward M. ARUNDEL, Respondent.

No. 48391.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 25, 1979.

Shanedling, Phillips Gross & Aaron and Felix M. Phillips, Minneapolis, for petitioner.

Henson & Efron and Alan C. Eidsness, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Heard before SHERAN, C. J., YETKA, and WAHL, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.

WAHL, Justice.

Appellant-Petitioner Sharon Arundel challenges the division of property and the provisions for alimony and life insurance in this appeal from a Hennepin County District Court judgment and amended judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for modification of the judgment.

In this case, we are dealing with the dissolution of a traditional marriage of many years' duration and considerable wealth. The parties, married 29 years, have five children, one of whom was a minor at the time of trial. The wife, 51, with one year of college, no vocational skills, and minimal work experience as a dictaphone stenographer for a short time before and after her marriage, has been a traditional and exemplary wife, mother, and homemaker during the 29-year marriage. The husband, also 51, is a highly successful lawyer, receiving, as a partner in a Minneapolis law firm, a gross yearly income ranging from $91,800 in 1973 to $107,500 in 1976. The parties acquired personal and nonhomestead property worth about $217,600. An additional $63,250 in securities, jewelry, and office furnishings were attributable to respondent's inheritances from his mother and aunt in 1974 and 1975, respectively. The parties also owned a homestead in Edina, purchased in 1976 for $125,000. Additionally, respondent owned insurance policies, whole life and term, with a total face value of $310,000, the beneficiaries of which included respondent's law firm, his estate, his children, and petitioner. Respondent's partnership interest in the law firm was not assigned a value.

At the time of trial, petitioner had certain health problems, including high blood pressure, and was receiving counseling. Respondent's health was good.

In June of 1976, petitioner commenced the action for dissolution of the marriage. Since grounds for dissolution were admitted, the trial on March 23-24, 1977 addressed only property division, alimony and child support. On September 20, 1977, the trial court issued its order for division of the property, child support, and alimony. Petitioner moved for amended findings, which in significant part, were denied. The final judgment and decree made the following provisions:

                PETITIONER                              RESPONDENT
                DIVISION OF PROPERTY
                Personal property                       Personal property
                (household furnishings,                 (retirement plan, car
                stocks, car, boats,                     golf cart, household
                jewelry)                                furnishings, stamps
                                                        coins)
                                            $44,600                                $44,000
                Nonhomestead real                       Nonhomestead real
                property                                property
                                            $25,000                                $40,750
                                            _______                                _______
                                            $69,000                                $84,750
                (To compensate for the above $15,150 difference in respondent's favor, the trial
                court ordered the following disposition of the proceeds from the sale of the
                homestead:)
                Homestead proceeds                      Homestead proceeds
                ($5,000 of which was                    (to offset promissory
                designated lump sum                     note encumbering
                alimony)                                homestead)
                                            $20,150                                $30,000
                50% of balance of                       50% of balance of
                net proceeds                            net proceeds
                Noncoverture property                   Noncoverture property
                                                        (inheritance)
                                            $ -0-                                  $63,250
                ALIMONY: Petitioner was awarded permanent alimony in the amount of $2,000 per
                month
                

                LIFE INSURANCE
                Respondent was ordered to provide life insurance listing petitioner as beneficiary
                in the amount of $125,000 until minor child is emancipated and lump
                sum alimony is paid, then reduced to $75,000 until 1985, after which time no
                life insurance was required.
                

Petitioner requests this court to modify the award of property by making a more equal division, to increase the permanent alimony to $3,200 per month, to require respondent to maintain insurance to protect petitioner in the amount of at least $125,000, so long as the alimony continues, and to award attorneys fees in this court. Respondent urges that the trial court be affirmed on each issue, as its judgment was well within the scope of its statutory discretion.

1. We affirm the trial court's division of property. The facts of this case, in particular the length of the marriage and the wealth accumulated through the joint efforts of the parties, justify application of the principle of equal division. See, Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 175 N.W.2d 148 (1970). It appears on the record before us that, except for $63,250 of respondent's inheritance from his mother and aunt within three years of the dissolution, the trial court's division of property was approximately equal. With respect to the inheritance assets, we note that the evidence of petitioner's exemplary relationship with and services to her husband's family was not totally disregarded, as the trial court segregated only $63,250 out of a possible $108,000 as noncoverture property. While petitioner's need for a substantial property settlement is great, petitioner has no absolute right to any portion of respondent's noncoverture property. Under the provisions of Minn. St. 518.59, which were in effect at the time of the trial court's decision, the trial court could award to one spouse up to one-half of the noncoverture property of the other spouse, as the court deems just and reasonable.¹ The trial court did not do so in this case, and in light of the permanent alimony award and the division of substantial marital property, we...