Shovlain v. Shovlain

Citation305 P.2d 737,78 Idaho 399
Decision Date18 December 1956
Docket NumberNo. 8448,8448
PartiesRay A. SHOVLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rebekah SHOVLAIN, Defendant-Respondent,
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

Gigray & Boyd, Caldwell, for appellant.

Davison & Davison and R. H. Copple, Boise, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

The parties were married August 2, 1954. Plaintiff (appellant) owned separate property consisting of real estate upon which was located a service station, cafe and motel, encumbered by two mortgages securing an aggregate indebtedness of some $16,000, and personal property consisting mostly of equipment pertaining to the station, cafe and motel. Defendant (respondent) owned separate real property upon which was located a small pumice block building, and which was encumbered by a mortgage securing a balance owing of $2,700. After the marriage the parties concluded to enlarge the building upon defendant's property and operate a cafe therein. To obtain funds for this project, $15,000 was borrowed and a mortgage, executed by both parties, encumbering defendant's property, was given as security. $2,700 of the loan was disbursed by the mortgagee in payment of the debt to the holder of the prior mortgage. The balance of the loan, $12,300, was paid to the parties at intervals during the construction period, and was the estimated cost of completing the building. Construction was commenced in October, 1954, and finished about March 2, 1955, when the cafe was opened for business.

As the proceeds of the loan were received they were deposited in a joint bank account of the parties. Plaintiff testified he had over $1,000 in the account at the time of marriage. Construction was under the direction and control of plaintiff. He drew checks on the joint account for materials and labor as the work progressed. At the trial he offered in evidence a group of checks which he testified represented expenditures made for the construction of the cafe building and which total $12,272.19. Some of the items represented by the checks were challenged by the defendant, she testifying that a total of $459.25 of the expenditures, so represented, were for the use and benefit of the separate property and business of plaintiff. Some of these challenged items were admitted by plaintiff to be erroneously included in his statement of building expenses. $2500 of the proceeds of the loan was used as a down payment on equipment for the new cafe, which was known as 'Becky's' cafe.

The parties had a verbal agreement that defendant would have charge of the hiring and supervision of the help in the operation of both cafes, and that plaintiff would 'oversee the supervising' and buy the groceries and supplies for both cafes.

Within a few days of the opening of Becky's cafe the parties had a disagreement concerning the help employed by defendant, and concerning conduct of the plaintiff which defendant regarded as insanitary. These differences became quite bitter and formed the basis of the complaint and cross-complaint upon which each of the parties was granted divorce from the other on the ground of extreme cruelty.

The cause was tried in November, 1955, and judgment entered January 6, 1956.

No issue is raised as to the divorce. Appellant assigns as error certain findings and conclusions of the trial court on the ground that they are not supported by evidence. The first is the finding that plaintiff's separate estate is obligated to the community in the sum of $3,344.93. This finding is based upon the testimony of the plaintiff that during the marriage he paid, upon the first mortgage lien against his separate property, the sum of $976; on the second mortgage on the same property the sum of $1,350; in payments maturing on the automobile, which he acquired before the marriage, the sum of $594; taxes on his separate property, $54.93; and a deep fat fryer for his separate cafe business, $370. The source of payment of these items was the joint bank account into which plaintiff deposited the income from his separate business properties, over and above that which was paid out in cash on current bills and living expenses for himself and defendant. Such income was community property. § 32-906, I.C.; Gapsch v. Gapsch, 76 Idaho 44, 277 P.2d 278. Other than the $1,000, which he claimed to have in his bank account before marriage, plaintiff makes no claim that he had separate funds from which these items could have been paid. Thus the court's finding that they were paid with community funds, and its conclusion that his separate estate became obligated to the community therefor, is sustained, at least to the extent of $2,344.93.

The second assignment attacks the finding that, of the $12,300 deposited proceeds of the loan, $9,049.42 was expended to improve defendant's separate estate, and that $2,500 for equipment, $150 for power, and $100 for poultry, of the loan funds, were expended in the Becky's cafe venture, which was a community enterprise, and that the community is obligated to defendant's separate estate in the sum of $3,250.58.

It is not clear how the court arrived at the sum of $9,049.42 found to have been expended on the building. But, if we add to the $2,750, expended on the Becky's cafe business, other items which defendant testified were expended therefrom in plaintiff's separate business, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Papin v. Papin, Docket No. 45277
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 20, 2019
    ...reimbursable because the funds enhanced the husband’s equity in that property. Id. at 519, 5 P.3d at 980 (citing Shovlain v. Shovlain , 78 Idaho 399, 402, 305 P.2d 737, 738 (1956) ).Similarly, in Martsch , we held that a husband was entitled to be reimbursed by the wife for property taxes e......
  • Sheppard v. Sheppard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 16, 1982
    ...obtained on the credit of both parties, i.e., the community, it cannot have been appellant's separate property. Cf., Shovlain v. Shovlain, 78 Idaho 399, 305 P.2d 737 (1956) (when wife borrowed money solely on credit of her separate property, the borrowed money remains her separate property)......
  • Papin v. Papin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 20, 2019
    ...because the funds enhanced the husband's equity in that property. Id. at 519, 5 P.3d at 980 (citing Shovlain v. Shovlain , 78 Idaho 399, 402, 305 P.2d 737, 738 (1956) ).Similarly, in Martsch , we held that a husband was entitled to be reimbursed by the wife for property taxes expended on th......
  • Good v. Good
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 28, 1957
    ...may in its discretion grant a divorce to both parties where the pleadings and the facts warrant, and such was done in Shovlain v. Shovlain, 78 Idaho ----, 305 P.2d 737. The principles announced in the De Burgh case and our own Howay case were quoted and approved by the supreme court of Mont......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT