Marriage of Loegering, In re
| Decision Date | 08 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-46,84-46 |
| Citation | 212 Mont. 499,41 St.Rep. 1892,689 P.2d 260 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Lawrence C. LOEGERING, Petitioner and Appellant, and Louise M. Loegering, Respondent and Respondent. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
R.W. Heineman, Wibaux, for petitioner and appellant.
W. Gene Theroux, Wolf Point, for respondent and respondent.
This is an appeal from the final judgment entered in the District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of Montana, in and for the County of Roosevelt, dividing the marital assets of the parties. The husband appeals.
The parties were married on January 23, 1950, at Poplar, Montana. There were four children born of the marriage, with the youngest graduating from high school in May, 1981, and attaining the age of majority in June, 1981.
In September of 1981, Larry Loegering, petitioned for divorce in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, in Richland County, Montana. Louise Loegering filed a motion to dismiss and to change venue to the county of her residence, Roosevelt County, Montana. The venue was ordered to be transferred and the action was filed in the Fifteenth Judicial District, Roosevelt County at Wolf Point, on November 9, 1981. Louise filed a motion for temporary maintenance on November 27, 1981, requesting a hearing before the District Court on December 8, 1981, on said motion.
On December 8, 1981, the District Court heard the motion for temporary maintenance and counsel for the parties stipulated that said hearing would also be for the purpose of hearing evidence on the dissolution of the marriage between the parties. The Court ordered $1,200 per month temporary maintenance to be paid by Lawrence to Louise until the marital estate had been divided between the parties.
The District Court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree of dissolution in this matter on January 15, 1982, reserving the division of the marital property for a later date convenient to the parties.
A hearing was held on the division of the property April 16, 1983, at which time both parties appeared and presented their evidence. On October 31, 1983, the District Court rendered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and division of marital property. Larry filed a motion for a new trial and a motion to alter and amend judgment upon which a hearing was held on December 13, 1983. The court issued its amendment to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, from which Larry has appealed.
Larry has worked many jobs, generally oil field related. His longest employment was from 1957 to 1975 with Murphy Oil Company. In 1975, Larry and Louise purchased a hardware store in Poplar, Montana. Larry worked in the store for two and one-half years. From 1975 until the store closed in May of 1982, Louise also worked in the store and kept the books for the business. At the time the parties purchased the store, they borrowed $45,000 from the Trader's State Bank at Poplar, Montana, where there is still a balance due and owing of $18,239.82, with interest from September 15, 1982. An operating loan was taken out by Larry and Louise at Trader's State Bank on April 22, 1981, in the amount of $19,706 of which there is an outstanding balance owed of $5,578.56, with interest from May 5, 1983. There is a balance due on the store purchase of $30,000 plus interest of $2,400. Other bills outstanding on the store are: property taxes for the year 1982 of $1,002.83; property taxes for the year 1983 of approximately $1,000; and insurance premiums of $1,220.
The total outstanding indebtedness of the Poplar store was in excess of $59,421.21. Larry testified the store may be worth $15,000 to $20,000. Larry testified that he told his son and Louise to close the store and left it up to them to sell the inventory and apply the money on obligations. Louise testified that she attempted to sell the store, but no one wanted it.
Larry and Louise discussed Louise moving to Sidney after their youngest daughter graduated from high school. However, Larry requested a separation from Louise in January of 1981, so Louise remained in Poplar. The testimony revealed, since 1977 when Larry reentered oil field work, he paid Louise $1,200 per month from which she maintained the home in Poplar for herself and minor children, made payments on the house mortgage, automobile and health insurance of the parties. Since January 1, 1982, she has received the sum of $1,200 per month under the order of the court for temporary maintenance.
Louise at the time of the hearing was fifty-six years of age. She has raised four children with the youngest child graduating from high school in May of 1981. She has an eighth grade education. She has no other training or schooling. Although not a trained bookkeeper, Louise maintained a set of records for the family business and waited on customers in the store from 1975 until June of 1982, when the store was closed. She is presently employed as a clerk in Boulds Drug of Poplar, Montana, earning $3.85 per hour for a thirty-seven and a half hour work week. Her take-home pay equals approximately $500 per month.
Larry is fifty-seven years of age and claims poor health because of high blood pressure. In 1977, Larry moved to Sidney, Montana, to become more available for oil field work. In January of 1981, he commenced work as an independent oil consultant. He transferred his consulting service to a wholly-owned corporation, L.C. Loegering, Inc.
The income of Larry from operating as an oil field consultant for the years 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 are as follows: gross: $54,619.67 and net: $51,570.51 of which approximately $16,000 was paid to federal and state income tax; gross: $73,535.58; and net: $67,518.01, of which approximately $25,000 was paid to federal and state income tax; gross: $104,609; and net: $65,887 of which approximately $25,000 was paid to federal and state income tax; net: $94,292 of which approximately $33,000 was paid to federal and state income tax.
Larry is now employed by Louisiana Land and Exploration as a consultant with an annual salary of $50,000 and fringe benefits including life insurance, medical insurance and a pension plan. He also possesses a pension plan from Murphy Oil Corporation upon which no value is placed. Larry has an operating loss carry-over from the 1982 operation of the hardware store. The operating loss carry-over amounts to $45,535, which was applied to his 1982 personal income tax return. This amount at the average federal tax imposed upon him of 29.30% in 1982 realized a savings to him of $13,342, none of which he shared with Louise.
The trial court's findings reveal at the time of the marriage dissolution in January of 1982, the marital assets of the parties included:
house in Poplar: $57,000.00
corporation accounts
receivable: $60,000.00
oil well: $7,000.00
corporation pension plan: $13,665.00
furniture in Sidney: $4,000.00
automobile: $4,800.00
Suburban: $9,400.00
El Camino: $6,500.00
jewelry: $2,000.00
trailer deck: $2,390.00
new wife's vehicle: $3,400.00
office equpiment: $2,000.00
store building in Poplar: $25,000.00
personal bank account: $2,779.92
corporation bank account: $9,000.00
Murphy Corporation
retirement: (husband unable
to place a value)
stock in corporation: (no value
given)
The transcript reveals the liabilities as follows
car loan: $918.00
house loan: $5,762.00
business loan: $23,818.38
store contract: $30,000.00
The trial court made no determination of the net value of the marital estate in its original findings, but upon motion to amend, modify and for a new trial, the court on December 13, 1983, found that marital net worth of the parties was $150,000 with $100,000 to Larry and $50,000 to Louise.
Prior to the dissolution of marriage, Larry expended the following sums for his fiancee without the knowledge or consent of Louise: $2,000 for jewelry; $2,390 for a deck on her trailer; and $3,400 for an automobile.
Larry's standard of living prior to the dissolution of marriage was quite high. He withdrew $2,500 per month from the Richland Bank and $2,500 per month from the Montana Bank. When Larry reentered the oil field consulting work in 1977, he established a second household at Sidney, Montana. Larry purchased a house for $143,000 in which he has $80,000 equity. He also retains a corporate pension plan in the amount of $13,665 and he invested in an oil well in the amount of $7,000. In addition, Larry has a personal bank account of $2,779.92, and his corporation, L.C. Loegering, Inc., has a bank account of $9,000. He also owns an El Camino automobile valued at $6,500 and a Suburban automobile valued at $9,400.
Louise received the following assets from the dissolution of marriage: the house in Poplar valued at $55,000, an automobile worth $4,800 and $10,000 in cash. Louise was to pay the debt on the house of $5,762.84 and the debt on the Oldsmobile of $918.64. The net award to Louise is $65,618.52 plus monthly maintenance of $1,000 per month.
Larry received the following marital property: the store in Poplar subject to the following bills: unpaid purchase balance of $30,000, unpaid interest of $2,400, unpaid insurance $1,220, unpaid taxes $1,002 and notes to Poplar Bank $23,808.38. The total loss on the Poplar store property was $43,430. Larry was awarded the value of the assets purchased from his earnings after separation but prior to the dissolutionment. Jewelry for fiancee, $2,000, deck for fiancee's trailer $2,390, car payment for fiancee $3,400, and one-fourth of the retirement account $3,416.25. Larry also received the following property ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparks v. Sparks
... ... Page 895 ... old and the defendant-husband was forty-five years old. There is one adult child of the marriage. Throughout the marriage both parties were regularly employed, but at the time of trial the plaintiff was unemployed. Her sole income at that time ... 2d 333 (Colo., 1985) (although the discretion is broad, it is not upheld if it produces unfair or inequitable results); In re Marriage of Loegering, 212 Mont. 499, 689 P.2d 260 (1984) (will not intervene unless there has been substantial injustice). See also Hazard, Civil Procedure (3d ed.), § ... ...
-
In re Marriage of Jolly v. Jolly, No. 05-439 (Mont. 12/29/2006), 05-439
... ... Loegering, 212 Mont. 499, 506, 689 P.2d 260, 264 (1984). Doing so provides the most accurate view of the status of the property at the time of trial. See Hamilton v. Hamilton, 186 Mont. 282, 283, 607 P.2d 102, 102 (1980). Section 40-4-202, MCA, also requires that the court divide the marital estate at ... ...
-
IN RE MARRIAGE OF POSPISIL
... ... See In re Marriage of Krause (1982), 200 Mont. 368, 654 P.2d 963 ... But see In re Marriage of Loegering (1984), 212 Mont. 499, 507-508, 689 P.2d 260, 265 (stating that it was improper to value marital property at the time of dispositional hearing rather than at the time of dissolution 15 months earlier, but concluding that this error was harmless) ... ¶ 44 In Krause, the delay ... ...
-
Marriage of Skinner, In re
... ... The delays that occurred were often intolerable resulting in a complete failure of the administration of justice. In re Marriage of Krause (1982), 200 Mont. 368, 654 P.2d 963; and In re Marriage of Loegering (1984), 212 Mont. 499, 689 P.2d 260 ... Along with the above-noted statute, the court should also consider the provisions of Sec. 40-4-201(1), MCA, in dissolution cases ... Issue 1. Did the District Court err in failing to make adequate findings of fact before dividing the ... ...