Loveland v. Loveland
| Decision Date | 05 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 9791,9791 |
| Citation | 422 P.2d 67,91 Idaho 400 |
| Parties | Carrie S. LOVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold G. LOVELAND, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Reginald R. Reeves, Idaho Falls, for appellant.
Sharp, Anderson & Bush, Idaho Falls, for respondent.
Carrie S. Loveland, appellant, and Harold G. Loveland, respondent, intermarried at Preston, Idaho, December 16, 1942, and were divorced by decree of the district court on June 22, 1965.
Five children were born of the marriage and at the date of the decree, their ages were: Alan, 20 years, 9 months; Ronald, 19 years, 10 months; Stephen, 18; Debra, 11; and Robert, 3.
The district court found the community assets to be $137,600 and the debts to be $60,000, including $46,000 in mortgages.
On October 31, 1964, appellant commenced this action for divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty, I.C. § 32-603, alleging that respondent had been 'stepping out with another woman.' While respondent generally denied this, he chose not to attempt a rebuttal and the parties so stipulated.
The court accepted the parties' stipulation as to extreme cruelty. The parties also stipulated that the court could enter an order requiring respondent to pay a reasonable fee for appellant's attorney at the close of trial. There was brief testimony by both parties regarding the ages and needs of the children and the family's prior standard of living, but the only serious dispute concerned the value of community property and custody and support of the children over 18 years.
At the close of trial the district court granted appellant a divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty and took under advisement the questions of child custody, support, division of the community property and attorney's fee. Later, the court concluded the community assets approximately to be $137,000 with liabilities of $60,000, for a net community value of $77,000. Of this net value, appellant was decreed slightly more than $53,000 and respondent, $24,000. Custody of the two younger children was awarded appellant and the court found that the three older boys had attained sufficient maturity to decide for themselves with which parent they would live. The court ordered respondent to support the second and third children, Ronald and Stephen, until they attain 21 years of age and to pay appellant a total of $160 per month for the support of the two younger children. Respondent had previously set aside sufficient funds to support Alan, until after he had attained 21 years. The court ordered no alimony for appellant, finding that the community assets assigned her would provide personal support, and also that she was trained as a secretary and bookkeeper and capable of working to support herself. Finally, the court decided that appellant should pay her own attorney's fee.
Appellant assigns error to the district court's valuation and division of community property, its child custody and support awards, the denial of alimony to appellant from respondent's separate property, and the refusal to award a reasonable attorney's fee to appellant's lawyer.
The parties' major community assets were real estate, including the home residence, rental units and vacant lots, and the Loveland Construction Company. Regarding the real estate values, respondent introduced records showing cost and present book value and appraisals of each parcel's market value made shortly before trial by Charles K. Thompson, M.A.I., and a member of the Society of Residential Appraisers, whose qualifications were stipulated to by appellant's attorney. Respondent called as witnesses both Mr. Thompson and respondent's accountant, Rulon Williams, a Certified Public Accountant. Appellant objected to some of respondent's evidence but did not offer evidence in support of her objections nor did she attempt a rebuttal, although the trial judge, in overruling appellant's objections, continually reminded appellant's attorney that he would consider any rebuttal evidence.
The real property had a book value of $60,626.84 and was appraised at a market value of $81,150.00. The court found the property to be worth $81,000.00.
As evidence regarding the value of the construction company, respondent presented records of book value and recent inventory taken by him at market value of the company's equipment and material and introduced the income figures from federal tax returns for the prior five years.
The inventory valued equipment and materials at slightly less than $26,000 (less an $8,000 incumbrance), approximately the book value. Net income per annum for the preceding five years averaged slightly less than $12,000. 1 On cross-examination of respondent's two witnesses, attorney for appellant attempted to establish that in addition to its equipment and material, the construction company had a substantial intangible asset of goodwill. However, both the company's accountant and the attorney for its bondsman emphatically denied that any valuation for goodwill attached to this company. They testified that any goodwill would attach rather to the personal ability and credit standing of the company's manager than to the company as an entity. 2 Donald R. Purcell, attorney for the Loveland Construction Company's bondsman, testified that the construction company was in serious financial difficulty. He also testified that failure to pay its debts as they came due had jeopardized the bond. He testified that the company then had $33,000 in past due debts outstanding and though still solvent, it risked the imminent forfeiture of its bond. If the company forfeited the bond, Purcell testified, it would irrevocably lose its credit in the construction industry and would then be unable to procure new construction jobs.
The court found the construction company to have a net worth of $26,000.
The district court is vested with discretion to assign community property 'in such proportions as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Endres v. Endres
...Hargrave, 163 Cal.App.3d 346, 209 Cal.Rptr. 764, 770 (1985); In re Marriage of Huff, 834 P.2d 244, 256 (Colo.1992); Loveland v. Loveland, 91 Idaho 400, 422 P.2d 67, 69 (1967); Porter v. Porter, 526 N.E.2d 219, 224 (Ind.Ct.App.1988); Walters v. Walters, 419 S.W.2d 750, 752 (Ky.Ct.App.1967); ......
-
Olsen v. Olsen
...119, 132, 525 P.2d 314 (1974); Evans v. Evans, 92 Idaho 911, 920, 453 P.2d 560 (1969); Saviers v. Saviers, supra; Loveland v. Loveland, 91 Idaho 400, 403, 422 P.2d 67 (1967); Losee v. Losee, 91 Idaho 77, 79, 415 P.2d 720 (1966); Despain v. Despain, 78 Idaho 185, 190, 300 P.2d 500 (1956); Ni......
-
Ross v. Ross
..."will not be overturned by this Court in the absence of an abuse of discretion." Id. at 898, 556 P.2d 854 (citing Loveland v. Loveland, 91 Idaho 400, 422 P.2d 67 (1967)). After reviewing the record in this case we find that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding to plaintiff $210......
-
Papin v. Papin
...S.Ct. 1670, 123 L.Ed.2d 288] (1993) ; see also Harshbarger v. Eby , 28 Idaho 753, 761, 156 P. 619, 621 (1916) ; Loveland v. Loveland , 91 Idaho 400, 402, 422 P.2d 67, 69 (1967). Goodwill is not the equivalent of future earnings. See In re marriage of Bookout , 833 P.2d 800, 804 (Colo. App. ......
-
§ 10.03 Goodwill
...(2007); Chandler v. Chandler, 136 Idaho 246, 32 P.3d 140 (2001); Olsen v. Olsen, 125 Idaho 603, 873 P.2d 857 (1994); Loveland v. Loveland, 91 Idaho 400, 422 P.2d 67 (1967). Indiana: Porter v. Porter, 526 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. App. 1988). Kentucky: Drake v. Drake, 809 S.W.2d 710 (Ky. App. 1991); ......