Biegalke v. Biegalke
| Decision Date | 23 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 13362,13362 |
| Citation | 564 P.2d 987,34 St.Rep. 401,172 Mont. 311 |
| Parties | Paul BIEGALKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, Counter-Claim-Defendant, v. Madeline BIEGALKE, Defendant and Counter-Claim-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Sandall, Cavan & Edward, Billings, John J. Cavan, argued, Billings, for plaintiff and appellant, counter-claim-defendant.
Cate, Lynaugh, Fitzgerald & Huss, Billings, Jerome J. Cate, argued, Billings, for defendant and counter-claim-plaintiff.
This is an appeal from the property division contained in a decree of divorce granted to both parties in the district court, Custer County.
Plaintiff is now 55 years of age. As a young man before his marriage and upon the death of his father, he took over and operated the fmily farm near Havre, Montana. He has spent his entire adult life up to this time operating farms and ranches.
Defendant is approximately the same age as plaintiff and has the same life style background.
The parties were married in 1948. They resided on the Havre farm until 1951, when they purchased the present farm-ranch which is located 14 miles west of Miles City, Montana, consisting of approximately 6,000 acres. The purchase price in 1951 was $120,000.00. Since 1951, several additional tracts have been added to the family holdings. At the original purchase, $57,000.00 was paid into the farm-ranch by plaintiff out of funds received from the sale of the Havre holdings. When purchased the Miles City farm-ranch was run down, with some old buildings, no water, plumbing or electricity.
After the purchase at Miles City the defendant contributed all the finances she possessed for living expenses and a down payment on farm machinery, for total of approximately $1,800.00 to $1,900.00.
During the next 8 years, 6 children were born. In addition to performing farm chores, defendant raised the children under extremely adverse conditions. There was never more than the bare necessities of life available to the family on the farm or elsewhere. Defendant drove the children to school for a number of years and then the family obtained a 3 or 4 plex in Miles City which defendant and children occupied during the school years. Defendant testified she sold books door to door to pay tuition for the children's schooling and to supplement the food budget, etc. The standard of living seemed unnecessarily harsh in view of an unoccupied, almost complete brick home of 3,000 square feet at the farm, standing next to the family housetrailer for some 19 years. This demonstrates that defendant gave all she was capable of giving in labor, self-denial and money over a period of years, during which farm buildings were erected and the farm improved into one of the finest farm-ranches in that area of Montana, together with a financial improvement of around a million dollars over the original purchase price.
The divorce action was tried September 18, 1975. The court entered its findings of facts and conclusions of law and decree January 20, 1976. The parties were each granted an absolute decree of divorce one from the other. Plaintiff was awarded custody of one minor girl and defendant awarded custody of the remaining minor boy, Paul Eric, a retarded child.
The court found 1) the husband and wife had during the course of their marriage increased the net value of their assets approximately $1,000,000.00 over and above money or property contributed at the time of the marriage; 2) that the accumulation of wealth was the result of hard work and sacrifice contributed by the parties and the immediate members of their family; and 3) that the wife's contribution as a ranch wife, homemaker and mother is equal in value to the husband's contribution as a ranch laborer and manager.
The property of the parties was divided in this manner:
(1) Plaintiff received the ranch-farm and all personal property, etc. in connection with its operation.
(2) Defendant received the property in Miles City.
(3) Defendant to be paid her interest in marital assets of $325,000.00, in this way:
a. Miles City property $20,000.00 (Mortgage $9,000.00).
b. $5,000.00 immediately.
c. $50,000.00 within 60 days following entry of decree (this date shall be the anniversary date of payment of annual subsequent installments).
d. One year from date of decree $50,000.00.
e. Remaining balance of $200,000.00 to be paid in annual installments of $20,000.00, no interest if payment paid when due.
f. After payment of $75,000.00 by plaintiff; upon showing of losses beyond his control he can apply to the court for equitable adjustment of payment of the balance.
The division was based on the premise that the ranch be kept intact and operated. If the ranch is sold by plaintiff or heirs before payment schedule is complete, defendant's equity will be $500,000.00 less $27,083.00 ($325,000.00 divided by 12) for each full year of operation as a ranch unit. If the ranch is sold on a contract the formula is changed, but defendant's interest remains the same figure.
Plaintiff appeals from the portion of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and final decree which divides the assets in the manner set forth, on the ground the court abused its discretion and that portion of the findings, conclusions and decree is not supported by the evidence or the law.
Plaintiff in his brief on appeal discussed the major cases since 1960 to date which had to do with formulation of the law on division of property accumulated during a marriage and has extracted the following guidelines from those cases:
1. The district court does have the jurisdiction to make an equitable adjustment of property rights between the husband and wife.
2. No particular pleading is necessary, nor is any recognized cause of action necessary to give the court such jurisdiction. The only requirement is that the language in the pleading puts the parties on notice that the court is being asked to make such an adjustment.
3. The jurisdiction of the court to make such adjustment is founded on its inherent power in equity cases to grant complete relief.
4. The title to or possession of property (except as to property not acquired by the joint efforts of the parties) cannot defeat the power of the court to make such an adjustment.
5. There is no presumption of gift as between husband and wife in property matters.
6. The court's exercise of its discretion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marriage of Bartsch
...186 Mont. at 402, 608 P.2d at 100) (see also Morse v. Morse, 174 Mont. 541, 546, 571 P.2d 1147, 1150 (1977)); Biegalke v. Biegalke, 172 Mont. 311, 315, 564 P.2d 987, 989 (1977) (holding that the court's exercise of its discretion in adjusting property rights between husband and wife must be......
-
Reich v. Reich
...sale of the ranch or farm. In re The Marriage of Jacobson v. Jacobson, 183 Mont. 517, 523, 600 P.2d 1183 (1979); Biegalke v. Biegalke, 172 Mont. 311, 314, 564 P.2d 987 (1977); Hunnewell v. Hunnewell, 160 Mont. 125, 132, 500 P.2d 1198 In Gomke v. Gomke, Mont., 627 P.2d 395, 396-97 (1981) the......
-
In re Marriage of Markegard
...and "commingled" their assets. Relying on Zell v. Zell (1977), 174 Mont. 216, 220, 570 P.2d 33, 35, and Biegalke v. Biegalke (1977), 172 Mont. 311, 316, 564 P.2d 987, 990, she argues she is entitled to one-half of the value of the home, business and business real property based on her work ......
-
Marriage of Popp, In re, 83-180
...the number of irrigated acres. In most material respects, the two appraisals are diametrically opposed. We stated in Biegalke v. Biegalke (1977), 172 Mont. 311, 564 P.2d 987, that "the trier of the facts has the discretion to give whatever weight he sees fit to the testimony of the expert f......