In re Marriage of Epperson, 03-813.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-813.,03-813. |
| Citation | 107 P.3d 1268,2005 MT 46,326 Mont. 142 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Yvonne S. EPPERSON, Petitioner and Appellant, and Robert H. Epperson, Respondent and Respondent. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Peter F. Carroll, Kalispell, Montana.
For Respondent: David W. Harman, Libby, Montana.
¶ 1 Yvonne Epperson (Yvonne) seeks reversal of the District Court's resolution of several issues pertaining to the dissolution of her marriage from Robert Epperson (Robert). She also requests a remand for a new trial before a new judge, claiming that the District Court judge who presided over this case was biased against her. We affirm.
¶ 2 A restatement of Yvonne's issues is:
¶ 3 1. Did the District Court err when it terminated the parties' irrevocable trusts as a result of the dissolution of the marriage?
¶ 4 2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by designating Robert as the custodial parent of the minor children? ¶ 5 3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it failed to conduct a child support calculation?
¶ 6 4. Did the District Court err when it failed to award Yvonne maintenance?
¶ 7 5. Was the District Court biased against Yvonne and, if so, was such bias so prevalent as to warrant a new trial?
¶ 8 The Eppersons were married in 1975. Seven children were born to the marriage and at the time of dissolution in October 2003, four had reached the age of majority and three were minors. The ages of the three minor children at the time of dissolution were 10, 12 and 13 years.
¶ 9 During the years the Eppersons were married, the family moved many times before finally settling in Bull Lake Valley, Montana, in 1992. Throughout the marriage, they lived a somewhat self-contained existence in which Yvonne home-schooled the children and they had little contact with other children or with any persons outside of the Tridentine Catholic faith. Prior to their parents' separation, the children did not participate in organized sports activities. The family had no television or telephone but at some time did acquire a computer to which the children had limited access. When the older boys reached age sixteen, they opted to stop their "formal" education and go to work for their father in his logging and construction business. The older daughter continued her education to approximately age eighteen.
¶ 10 In 1999, the Eppersons executed two irrevocable trusts-the Mary's Way Trust and the Bent Wrench Trust. The corpus of the Mary's Way Trust was approximately 60 acres of timbered land in the Bull Lake Valley. The family had developed the land to include a large log home, several out-buildings, a fish pond, an income-generating blueberry patch and an orchard. The Bent Wrench Trust consisted of the machinery, equipment, vehicles and tools primarily used in Robert's business. Both trusts contained a "purpose" provision which stated: "The grantors established this trust for their family, consisting of the persons identified below, because they have contributed substantially and materially to the process of acquiring the property and are, therefore, the equitable owners thereof." The couple's seven children were then listed as the "family" and beneficiaries of the trusts. Yvonne was to get annual income distributions from the Mary's Way Trust, and Robert was to get annual distributions from the Bent Wrench Trust.
¶ 11 In 2002, Yvonne filed a Petition for Dissolution asserting that the marriage was irretrievably broken. She sought custody of the minor children. Throughout the parties' separation and dissolution proceeding, all seven of the children became increasingly oppositional and defiant with Robert and professed to hate him and not want to see him or speak to him. During this time, Robert moved to California where various members of his family, including a brother, resided.
¶ 12 A non-jury trial was conducted on August 6-7, 2003. The District Court declined to rule from the bench and in September 2003, issued its fifteen-page, single-spaced Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of Dissolution. In this Decree, the court designated Robert as the custodial parent for the minor children. It terminated the irrevocable trusts established by Yvonne and Robert and ordered that the corpuses of these trusts be distributed as marital property between Yvonne and Robert. The court awarded a 2.5 acre parcel of the property to Yvonne and ordered the sale of the remaining real property with the proceeds being divided evenly between Robert and Yvonne. Each party had the option to purchase items of equipment from the other party. If neither party wanted the equipment, the equipment, too, would be sold with the proceeds divided equally. Additionally, it determined that no maintenance would be awarded to Yvonne.
¶ 13 Yvonne filed a Motion to Amend the Judgment in which she moved to stay the transfer of the children to Robert and moved to stay the sale of the family property pending appeal. She also requested a new trial based, in part, on her perception that the District Court was biased against her. Robert opposed the Motion.
¶ 14 The District Court held a hearing during which both sides presented their positions and arguments. Subsequently, the court issued an Order in which it stayed the sale of the property pending appeal but required that the children go to Robert without further delay. Additionally, the court denied Yvonne's request for a new trial. On October 23, 2003, the District Court issued its Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of Dissolution (Decree). Yvonne filed a timely appeal.
¶ 15 We note that on November 28, 2003, approximately one month after Robert and the children moved to California, Robert filed an Affidavit informing the District Court that the relationship between he and his children had so deteriorated during the month that he had moved back to Montana with the children and had enrolled them in public school in Troy.
¶ 16 We review a district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether that court's interpretation of the law is correct. In re Estate of Berthot, 2002 MT 277, ¶ 21, 312 MT 366, ¶ 21, 59 P.3d 1080, ¶ 21 (citing In re Mark K. Eggebrecht Irrevocable Trust, 2000 MT 189, ¶ 18, 300 Mont. 409, ¶ 18, 4 P.3d 1207, ¶ 18).
¶ 17 Our standard of review for a district court's award of child custody is whether the district court's findings are clearly erroneous. When the findings are supported by substantial credible evidence, we will affirm the district court's decision unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. In re Marriage of Baer, 1998 MT 29, ¶ 18, 287 Mont. 322, ¶ 18, 954 P.2d 1125, ¶ 18. The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice. State v. Baker, 2004 MT 393, ¶ 13, 325 Mont. 229, ¶ 13, 104 P.3d 491, ¶ 13 (citation omitted).
¶ 18 Did the District Court err when it terminated the parties' irrevocable trusts as a result of the dissolution of the marriage?
¶ 19 At the time Yvonne and Robert established the Mary's Way and Bent Wrench Trusts, they specifically designated these Trusts as "irrevocable." As the persons who established the Trusts, Yvonne and Robert were the "grantors" or "trustors." Yvonne and Robert were also the "trustees" of the Trusts and, as such, were charged with holding the Trust property and making annual distributions to themselves according to the terms of the Trusts. Their seven children were named as beneficiaries in each Trust.
¶ 20 During the dissolution proceeding, Robert sought termination of the Trusts arguing that the corpuses should be reclassified as marital assets and equitably distributed between he and Yvonne. He testified that the dual "family" purposes of the Trusts were to pass on the family property to the children upon his and Yvonne's deaths, and to use the Trusts as estate planning tools allowing the beneficiaries to avoid probate and inheritance taxes. He maintained that given the hostile circumstances in which the family found itself, such "family" purposes ceased to exist and the Trusts were no longer viable. Yvonne did not rebut this testimony; instead she testified that the Trusts were intentionally irrevocable, which meant "that [she and Robert] were not going to change [their] minds, and that [they] wanted the children to have the property when [they] passed away." As a result, Yvonne asserted that the Trusts should not be terminated.
¶ 21 There are limited methods by which an irrevocable trust may be modified or terminated. Section 72-33-406, MCA, provides:
In the case before us, the beneficiaries did not unanimously request or consent to terminating the Trusts; rather, those beneficiaries who testified strongly opposed such termination.
¶ 22 Additionally, § 72-33-413(1), MCA, provides for the modification or termination of a trust. It states:
On petition by a trustee or beneficiary, the court may modify the administrative or dispositive provisions of the trust or terminate the trust if the continuation of the trust under its terms would defeat or substantially impair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weimar v. Lyons
...district court. We will not reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the court under such circumstances." In re Marriage of Epperson, 2005 MT 46, ¶ 23, 326 Mont. 142, ¶ 23, 107 P.3d 1268, ¶ 23 (citations omitted). Therefore, Lyons' testimony, even if self-serving, was su......
-
Nelson v. Nelson
...to modify the Trust and reach the California home, an asset of the irrevocable Trust. See§ 736.04113; cf. In re Marriage of Epperson, 326 Mont. 142, 107 P.3d 1268, 1274 (2005) (affirming trial court's termination of family irrevocable trust under judicial termination statute similar to sect......
-
Woerner v. Woerner
...findings, we will not disturb a district court's decision regarding parenting unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Epperson, 2005 MT 46, ¶ 17, 326 Mont. 142, 107 P.3d 1268. A district court does not abuse its discretion unless it acted arbitrarily without employmen......
-
Anderson v. Deafenbaugh (In re Parenting G.J.A.)
...and set forth an analysis of the facts of the case to support its custody decision, there is no clear abuse of discretion.” In re Marriage of Epperson, 2005 MT 46, ¶ 35, 326 Mont. 142, 107 P.3d 1268. As we have stated before, “[t]he court needed to select a primary parent and it did so.” Cr......