Hiatt v. Hiatt, 10785
| Decision Date | 09 August 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 10785,10785 |
| Citation | 94 Idaho 367,487 P.2d 1121 |
| Parties | Helen K. HIATT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Francis E. HIATT, Sr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Glenn E. Bandelin, Sandpoint, for defendant-appellant.
William A. Regan, Coeur d'Alene, for plaintiff-respondent.
This case is an appeal from a decree of divorce and the defendant-husband claims that the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff-wife an equitable lien on the separate property of the defendant-husband.
Plaintiff-wife and defendant-husband were married in 1963, and each owned separate property prior to the marriage. The property pertinent to the question upon this appeal was the separate property of the defendant and consisted of an automobile dealership in Sandpoint, Idaho, and certain real and personal property in connection therewith. Plaintiff filed an action for divorce in 1968, and defendant answered and cross-complained. The trial court awarded a divorce to each of the parties and awarded plaintiff an equitable lien in the amount of $17,799.21 upon the automobile dealership and related property separately owned by the defendant. That amount represented one-half of the total amounts expended during the time of the marriage for improvements and payment of indebtedness on the automobile business. Those amounts were found to have been expended from community assets.
Defendant-husband appeals from that portion of the decree awarding the equitable lien and contends in brief that since the business never earned any rent or profit the trial court erred in the awarding of the equitable lien and alternatively that even if the award of the lien was proper, the amount thereof was incorrectly determined.
Almost the entire case of the defendant is based upon certain income tax returns covering the period of time of the marriage and relating to the profit or loss of the automobile dealership. Those tax returns tended to show that the business had not made a profit during the time of the marriage, but rather had sustained losses every year. It is evident that the trial court largely ignored those tax returns as determinative of the profit or loss sustained in the business. Expert testimony revealed that the defendant-husband had maintained a most unusual bookkeeping system to reflect the conduct of the business and that it was impossible to determine, among other things, the gross sales that had been made by the business through an examination of the income tax returns. It was indicated that when he defendant would mortgage (or 'floor') an automobile, thereby receiving cash, the defendant's books would record such as a sale. When a mortgage wasd paid, such was recorded as a purchase of an automobile. There was further ample evidence in the record upon which the trial court could have found that the business had made a profit during the years in question. Defendant's personal worth had climbed rapidly after the starting of the business without any showing that the defendant had any other source of income. There were large 'draws' in cash in addition to various substantial 'expense' allocations from the business.
As has been said many times by this Court, 'Error will not be presumed on appeal but must be affirmatively shown on the rocord by the appellant.' American Railway Sup. Ass'n v. Union Pac. Lodge No. 145, 92 Idaho 925, 453 P.2d 574 (1969); Gardner v. Fliegel, 92 Idaho 767, 450 P.2d 990 (1969); Supreme Court Rules, Rule 41. Defendant has failed to show on the record facts which affirmatively indicate that the award of the equitable lien on the property was error.
Defendant contends on the one hand that the business made no net profit and on the other hand contends that some $35,000.00, which was paid to decrease indebtedness and make improvements on the property, somehow came from the business. The trial court found that the expenditure of monies took place from community funds and therefore awarded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoskinson v. Hoskinson
...value of the property attributable thereto, not the amount or value of the community contribution. Suter, supra, Hiatt v. Hiatt, 94 Idaho 367, 368, 487 P.2d 1121, 1122 (1971). The party seeking such reimbursement to the community carries the burden of demonstrating that the community expend......
-
Hoskinson v. Hoskinson, 2003 Opinion No. 116 (Idaho 11/21/2003), Docket No. 27786.
...in value of the property attributable thereto, not the amount or value of the community contribution. Suter, supra, Hiatt v. Hiatt, 94 Idaho 367, 368, 487 P.2d 1121, 1122 (1971). The party seeking Page 15 reimbursement to the community carries the burden of demonstrating that the community ......
-
Cook v. Cook
...earning capacity during marriage is community property. See Hooker v. Hooker, 95 Idaho 518, 511 P.2d 800 (1972); Hiatt v. Hiatt, 94 Idaho 367, 487 P.2d 1121 (1971). Nevertheless, once a marriage is terminated and the community is dissolved, each person's right to work toward securing his ow......
-
Erickson v. Erickson
...during a period of marriage from the efforts, labor[,] and industry of the parties constitutes community assets." Hiatt v. Hiatt , 94 Idaho 367, 368, 487 P.2d 1121, 1122 (1971). Because all property acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property, a party wishing to show that ......
-
§ 7.04 Characterizing Improvements
...[57] See, e.g.: Arizona: Honnas v. Honnas, 133 Ariz. 39, 648 P.2d 1045 (1982). Florida: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.075. Idaho: Hiatt v. Hiatt, 94 Idaho 367, 487 P.2d 1121 (1971). New Mexico: Chance v. Kitchell, 99 N.M. 443, 659 P.2d 895 (1983); Portillo v. Shappie, 97 N.M. 59, 636 P.2d 878 (1981)......