FINLAYSON v FINLAYSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12162 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1972 - - - - - - EVA MAE FINLAYSON, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - DUNCAN FINLAY SON, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A. B. M a r t i n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : Goldman, McChesney and Datsopoulos, Missoula, Montana. H. L. McChesney a r g u e d , Missoula, Montana. F o r Respondents: Kenneth R. Wilson a r g u e d , Miles C i t y , Montana. submitted: J u n e 1 2 , 1972 Decided : AUG 1 1 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of the Court. This appeal i s from a f i n a l judgment e n t e r e d on June 30, 1971, i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n t r i e d t o t h e c o u r t without a j u r y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e s i x t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Custer. I n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , both p a r t i e s were g r a n t e d a d i - vorce w i t h r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y d i v i d e d e q u a l l y . Neither p a r t y h a s appealed t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e d i v o r c e , however, Eva Mae Finlayson, p l a i n t i f f , a p p e a l s from t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment She contends t h a t c e r t a i n which divided t h e p r o p e r t y e q u a l l y . s p e c i f i e d p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g t h e family r e s i d e n c e , c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t , and a 1968 Pontiac automobile, a r e h e r s o l e and sepa r a t e property. Eva and Duncan Finlayson were married on October 26, 1956. Duncan i n i t i a l l y c o n t r i b u t e d approximately $5,693.84 t o t h e marriage; Eva c o n t r i b u t e d a r e s i d e n c e l o c a t e d i n Miles C i t y , Montana, obtained from a p r i o r marriage and valued a t approximately $15,000 t o $18,000 w i t h an unpaid mortgage of $5,289.05. During t h e marriage Eva worked r e g u l a r l y a s a w a i t r e s s and Duncan worked r e g u l a r l y a s a janitor. Both p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t e d t h e i r e a r n i n g s t o a j o i n t checking account. I n 1959, t h e home i n Miles C i t y was placed i n j o i n t tenancy by Eva t o avoid probate and although she recorded t h e i n s t r u m e n t , Duncan was n o t aware of t h e j o i n t tenancy u n t i l 1969. During t h e course of t h e marriage Eva r e g u l a r l y purchased c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t w i t h t i p s she r e c e i v e d a s a w a i t r e s s . She a l s o i n v e s t e d approximately $1,000 she r e c e i v e d from h e r mother's e s t a t e i n c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t . Both Eva and Duncan were shown a s j o i n t owners of t h e c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t u n t i l May 1970, t h e time of t h e f i l i n g of t h i s a c t i o n , when Eva c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e s i n t o one c e r t i f i c a t e i n h e r name and h e r s i s t e r ' s name, Leta L. Vick. The 1968 Pontiac automobile was obtained by Eva i n h e r name by using an automobile a l s o i n h e r name a s a down payment. The payments on t h e Pontiac and t h e t r a d e - i n automobile were made from t h e j o i n t checking account with t h e f i n a l payment of $1,300 on t h e Pontiac being made from t h e j o i n t savings account. Since Duncan did n o t d r i v e and had never owned an automobile, he consented t h a t t h e automobile be i n W a g s s e p a r a t e name and d i d n o t consider t h e automobile a s one-half h i s u n t i l cornrnencement of t h e divorce a c t i o n . Although o t h e r property was l i s t e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s which divided t h e property, Eva has n o t questioned t h a t division. There a r e two divergent philosophies of ownership urged by t h e p a r t i e s . Appellant, Eva, who was given considerable l a t i t u d e by Duncan i n d i r e c t i n g m a r i t a l f i n a n c i a l m a t t e r s , a s s e r t s t h a t h e r ownership i s based on t h e s p e c i f i c c o n t r i b u t i o n s which she made t o t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of t h e i n d i v i d u a l c l a s s e s of property. Respondent, Duncan, argues t h a t t h e property acquired during t h e marriage, although held i n v a r i o u s s t a t e s of ownership by t h e p a r t i e s , was t h e r e s u l t of t h e t o t a l c o n t r i b u t i o n of both p a r t i e s . Recent decisions of t h i s Court support t h e b a s i c proposition t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may a l l o c a t e property acquired during a and marriage on an e q u i t a b l e b a s i s according t o c o n t r i b u t i o n s , / u n l e s s a review of a l l t h e evidence on appeal r e v e a l s t h a t t h e r e has been an i n e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n t o a s u b s t a n t i a l degree, t h e d e c i s i o n of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l not be d i s t u r b e d . Bloom v. Bloom, 150 Mont. 511, 515, 437 P.2d 1 ; Hodgson v. Hodgson, 156 Mont. 469, 482 P.2d 140; Libra v. Libra, 157 Mont. 252, 484 P.2d 748. I n Bloom t h e Court s a i d : "'Therefore, t h e c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n g r a n t i n g t h e divorce and d i v i d i n g and a d j u s t i n g t h e litigants' r i g h t s i n property accumulated by t h e j o i n t e f f o r t s of t h e p a r t i e s . The p r o p k r t y acquired j o i n t l y during t h e marriage may be divided regardless of whether the t i t l e t h e r e t o i s i n e i t h e r or both of the p a r t i e s . 27B C.J.S. D i vorce, 1 295 ( 5 ) , p. 304 9 et.seq. "' (Emphasis added). When viewing the e n t i r e record of contributions t o t h i s marriage by both p a r t i e s , we find the properties were paid f o r o r acquired out of j o i n t l y accumulated funds and represent a comrningl i n g of j o i n t resources. Other than the earnings of the p a r t i e s and the r e n t s from the u p s t a i r s apartment i n the house i n Miles City, the only f i n a n c i a l contribution t o the marriage came from an inheritance i n the approximate sum of $4,000 from Eva's mother. Some of t h e inheritance was used by Eva during the course of probate of her mother's e s t a t e t o purchase from her two s i s t e r s t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n the deceased mother's home i n B i l l i n g s . Duncan makes no claim against t h i s home which, by an undisclosed arrangement, i s held i n the name of Eva's f r i e n d , L. G. Pence. Apart from the foregoing, j o i n t funds were used t o pay off the mortgage on the house i n Miles City and t o add improvements, including the addition of a garage i n the f a l l of 1957 a t a c o s t of $2,595.78. It appears t h a t Eva and Duncan paid t h e i r l i v i n g and miscellaneous expenses from t h e i r s a l a r i e s and Eva purchased the c e r t i f i c a t e s of deposit from t i p s . The c e r t i f i c a t e s were held i n the j o i n t names of Eva and Duncan u n t i l she t r a n s f e r r e d them i n t o a consolidated c e r t i f i c a t e of deposit i n the j o i n t names of Eva and her s i s t e r , p r i o r t o f i l i n g f o r divorce. I n examining the j o i n t income tax r e t u r n s of the p a r t i e s f o r the years 1959 t o 1969, i t appears t h a t Duncan contributed approximately $1,000 per year more s a l a r y t o the j o i n t e f f o r t than did Eva. Over the period of years involved, t h i s would equal the amount from t i p s t h a t Eva placed i n c e r t i f i c a t e s of deposit which t o t a l e d $12,088.68. I4hen \r consider this marriage of fifteen years duration, ie che economic gains demonstrated are the result of as equal a contribution by the parties as could be achieved in any marriage. Bound by the rule above recited, this Court finds no evidence of inequity in the distribution, much less to a substantial tegree. Judgment o f the trial court is affirmed. Associate Justice / /chief J u s t i c e ("J--zd&+&&-&Associate J u d i c e s -----
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
