Parker v. Parker
| Citation | 522 P.2d 788,95 Idaho 876 |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 11470,11470 |
| Parties | Louise PARKER, Respondent, v. Fred PARKER, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Lloyd J. Webb, Webb, Pike, Burton & Carlson, Twin Falls, for appellant.
Robert J. Koontz, Elam, Burke, Jeppesen, Evans & Boyd, Boise, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of divorce in which the primary question is the valuation and division of the principal community property asset of the parties, a 60-acre tract of real property.
Plaintiff-respondent Louise S. Parker, 60 years of age, sought a divorce from her husband of 40 years, defendant-appellant Fred Parker, 69 years of age. The district court granted the wife a divorce on the ground of irreconciable differences and determined that the parties' community property should be divided equally.
The principal area of dispute between the parties concerns a 60-acre tract of land located south of Hailey, Idaho. That property had been acquired by the parties prior to their separation, apparently fully paid for and free of any encumbrance, and for the preceding nine years the parties had resided and conducted a cummunity property cattle feeding business thereon. It was zoned for low density residential use and a portion bordered on the Wood River (apparently incorrectly described in the findings of the district court as the Little Wood River instead of the Big Wood River).
At trial the parties sought to establish the value of the disputed property and offered the testimony of expert witnesses. Those opinions varied from a low estimate of $47,500 on the part of appellant to high estimates of $170,275-$178,000 on behalf of respondent. That expert testimony conflicted both as to the extent, if any, that proximity to the river would hinder potential development and also as to which recent sales of land in the area were most nearly comparable to that of the parties.
The district court found that the value of the real property of the parties was $140,000. Appellant contends that this figure is not supported by the evidence. We note that none of the testimony of the experts on comparable sales involved parcels of property identical to the property of the parties. Some were different in terms of acreage or topography and some sales occurred shortly before trial while others were more remote in time. The district court obviously gave greater weight to certain portions of testimony than was given to other testimony, all of which was completely permissible. There was substantial and undisputed testimony regarding the rapidly increasing land values in the area.
This court stated in Chugg v. Chugg, 94 Idaho 45, 480 P.2d 891 (1971):
The valuation of the district court herein is not clearly erroneous and is supported by substantial, competent although conflicting evidence; therefore it will not be disturbed on appeal. I.R.C.P. 52(a); Chugg v. Chugg, supra; Huskinson v. Huskinson, 92 Idaho 920, 453 P.2d 569 (1969).
In an attempt to provide for the disposition of the parties' community interests in the real property the district court provided for three alternative means of disposition. The first alternative was to permit the purchase by one spouse of the other's $70,000 community interest in the property. In that regard the judgment provided:
The second alternative provided by the district court was that of sale to a third party. The third alternative provided by the decree of the district court was partition.
Considering the first alternative, appellant contends that the decree of the district court is unclear regarding.
1. The period of time within which the election by one of the parties to purchase must be exercised.
2. The form necessary for the exercise.
3. Other questions involving downpayment, amounts and times of periodic payments, and applicable interest rate. Appellant suggests that the quoted language of the district court is to be interpreted to mean that one spouse may purchase the property from the other by means of installment payments over a period of 20 years.
In our opinion the district court did not intend that a buy-sell arrangement between the parties would involve deferred or periodic payment from one spouse to the other. Except where the best interests of the parties require otherwise the trial court in a divorce action should divide the community property in such a way as to give each spouse the sole and immediate control of his or her determined share. Larson v. Larson, 95 Idaho 376, 509 P.2d 1297 (1973); McNett v. McNett, 95 Idaho 59, 501 P.2d 1059 (1972); Ripatti v. Ripatti, 94 Idaho 581, 494 P.2d 1025 (1972). That principle is particularly applicable in the instant case in view of the ages of the parties, the amount of time already consumed in litigation and the financial status of each of the parties. Cases where one spouse has been permitted to pay off the other's community interest in installments are clearly distinguishable from the situation herein. Those cases involved circumstances where a forced sale of a business would result in the waste of a community asset, where the best interests of the parties' minor children were involved, and other factors not present herein. E. g. Ripatti v. Ripatti, supra; Jackson v. Jackson, 87 Idaho 330, 393 P.2d 28 (1964).
It is also our opinion that since the judgment of the district court omitted all reference to down payment, periodic payments, interest rates, etc. that the acquisition of outside financing and a lump sum payment were intended by the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carr v. Carr
...property in such a way as to give each spouse the sole and immediate control of his or her share of the property. Parker v. Parker, 95 Idaho 876, 522 P.2d 788 (1974). Thus, to give each spouse the immediate control of his or her share of the property, the trial court may provide for the sal......
-
Parker v. Parker, s. 11796
...Evans & Boyd, Boise, for plaintiff-respondent. BAKES, Justice. A prior opinion in this case was issued on May 16, 1974. Parker v. Parker, 95 Idaho 876, 522 P.2d 788. That opinion considered the appeal of the defendant appellant Fred Parker concerning the division of the community property c......