DOWNS v DOWNS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13091 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN GLADYS T H E W DOWNS, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , ROBERT FRED DOWNS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C h a r l e s Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Lucas, J a r d i n e & Monaghan, Miles C i t y , Montana James P. Lucas a r g u e d , Miles. C i t y , Montana K r o n m i l l e r and Seykora, Hardin, Montana James E. Seykola a r g u e d , Hardin, Montana F o r Respondent: C a t e , Lynaugh, F i t z g e r a l d and Huss, B i l l i n g s , Montana Jerome J. Cate a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: A p r i l 22, 1976 Decided : JtIN Filed : Ji rrJ 2 i 5C37t; ; 2 8 1976 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s appeal a r i s e s o u t of a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t i n a divorce a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Big Horn County. The only i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n i t s d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , o r made an i n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of t h e a s s e t s , most of which were a c q u i r e d during t h e 19 y e a r s of t h e p a r t i e s ' marriage. P l a i n t i f f and defendant were married i n 1956. Defendant was 34 y e a r s of age a t t h e time of t h e marriage and had been p r e v i o u s l y married and divorced. a t t h e time of t h e marriage. P l a i n t i f f was 24 y e a r s of age Three c h i l d r e n were born t o t h e p a r t i e s , one d i e d a s a r e s u l t of a f i r e t h a t destroyed t h e family ranch home i n 1971. 16 and a son Ricky The o t h e r two c h i l d r e n a r e Debbie Diane, age Ray, age 12. P l a i n t i f f f i l e d f o r d i v o r c e , custody of t h e c h i l d r e n , alimony, and a d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y . complaint. Defendant f i l e d a c r o s s Custody of daughter Debbie Diarte was awarded t o p l a i n t i f f , t o g e t h e r w i t h $200 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t , p l u s an award t o p l a i n t i f f of 32 a c r e s of l a n d ( i n c l u d i n g t h e family home valued between $30,000 and $70,000), household c o n t e n t s , a u t o , p l u s $250,000, payable i n i n s t a l l m e n t s over a p e r i o d of 12 y e a r s . Defendant was awarded custody of son Ricky Ray and a l l t h e r e maining p r o p e r t y , s u b j e c t t o t h e mortgages and l i a b i l i t i e s . A t t h e time of d i v o r c e p l a i n t i f f was 42 y e a r s of age. e d u c a t i o n c o n s i s t e d of one y e a r of h i g h school. a s a w a i t r e s s a t t h e time she married defendant. Her She was working During t h e e n t i r e marriage she performed t h e many t a s k s n e c e s s a r y t o r a i s e h e r family and h e l p run a ranch o p e r a t i o n . Her c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e marriage p a r t n e r s h i p were many and t h e y undoubtedly helped t h e couple i n a c q u i r i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e w e a l t h . P l a i n t i f f contends a t t h e time of t h e marriage t h e v a l u e of d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s was approximately $45,000 and through j o i n t e f f o r t s t h e i r p r e s e n t n e t wurth i s $2,800,000. Defendant was 52 y e a r s of age a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e . H e has s u c c e s s f u l l y engaged i n a v a r i e t y of b u s i n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g a l i v e s t o c k o p e r a t i o n , farm and r a n c h i n g , a t r u c k l i n e from S e a t t l e t o Alaska, an a e r i a l s p r a y s e r v i c e , o i l w e l l p r o d u c t i o n , and o t h e r s . Throughout t h e marriage defendant k e p t t i t l e t o h i s p r o p e r t y i n h i s own name except f o r c o n t r a c t s f o r deed conveying r e a l p r o p e r t y s o l d by defendant and upon which h i s w i f e ' s name appeared a s s e l l e r . Defendant contends t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e of h i s a s s e t s a t t h e time of t h e marriage was i n excess of $400,000 and t h a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e h i s a s s e t s were c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s t h a n t h e amount a l l e g e d by p l a i n t i f f . O a p p e a l , t h e problem c o n f r o n t i n g t h i s Court c e n t e r s n around r h e q u e s t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s a t t h e time of h i s marriage and a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e . him a s a most e v a s i v e w i t n e s s . The t r a n s c r i p t p o r t r a y s A t t h e v e r y f i r s t page of t h e t r a n s c r i p t , c o u n s e l f o r p l a i n t i f f moved t o postpone t h e t r i a l on t h e grounds t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s due from defendant had n o t been d e l i v e r e d on time and when t h e y were r e c e i v e d they were e v a s i v e , incomplete and prevented an adequate d i s c o v e r y p r o c e s s . In his motion, c o u n s e l a l s o informed t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e a f f i d a v i t of an appointed a p p r a i s e r of t h e p r o p e r t y showed t h a t without b e i n g f u l l y informed of a l l t h e p r o p e r t y and having f i v e o r s i x days t o cond u c t t h e a p p r a i s a l , h e could n o t b r i n g back any v a l u e s . This morion t o postpone was denied by t h e c o u r t and it i s obvious t h e t r i a l judge, a s w e l l a s p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l , lacked a f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of t h e p a r t i e s ' a s s e t s a t t h e time of t r i a l . This f a i l u r e t o f u l l y p u t b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t proper v a l u a t i o n of a l l t h e p r o p e r t y caused t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o make an i n e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y i n s o f a r a s p l a i n t i f f ' s needs a r e concerned. Too, t h e t r i a l c o u r t was faced i n making i t s d e c i s i o n w i t h t h e problem of i n t e r p r e t i n g and e v a l u a t i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of defendant a s a w i t n e s s . Throughout t h e testimony of d e f e n d a n t , he was e v a s i v e and gave u n f a i r and i n c o r r e c t answers, a l l of which should have r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n of c r e d i b i l i t y a s a w i t n e s s . ~ e f e n d a n t ' stestimony was of l i t t l e a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e t r i a l judge i n making a f a i r d i v i s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y . This Court i n a number of r e c e n t o p i n i o n s concerning t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s power t o d i v i d e p r o p e r t y accumulated d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , h a s h e l d t h e d i v i s i o n should be on an e q u i t a b l e b a s i s r e g a r d l e s s of who had t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y . Aksamit v . Aksamit, 162 Mont. 266, 511 P.2d 10; L i b r a v. L i b r a , 157 Mont. 252, 484 P.2d 748; Bloom v. Bloom, 150 Mont. 511, 437 P.2d 1. Further, t h a t t h e c o u r t i n making p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n s may c o n s i d e r p r o p e r t y owned a t t h e commencement of t h e m a r r i a g e , f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s , t h e e f f o r t s of t h e p a r t i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e performance of d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s r e q u e s t e d of a w i f e . Cook v. Cook, 159 Mont. 98, 495 P.2d 591; Hunnewell v . Hunnewell, 160 Mont. 125, 500 P.2d 1198; Francke v. Francke, 161 Mont. 98, 504 P.2d 990. Admitted i n t o evidence d u r i n g t h e t r i a l was a f i n a n c i a l s t a t e m e n t submitted by defendant t o t h e Big Horn County S t a t e Bank i n A p r i l 1974. I n t h i s record, t h a t statement i s t h e only i n d i c a t i o n of t h e n e t worth of defendant. Therein he l i s t s h i s t o t a l a s s e t s a t $3,371,007; h i s l i a b i l i t i e s a t $489,000; and h i s n e t worth a t $2,882.007. P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t t h e award t o h e r compared t o t h e n e t a s s e t s of defendant when computed i n t o percentages would mean an award of only 9.56%. I f one were n o t t o d i s c o u n t t h e $175,000 award t o a v a l u e of $100,612.21, p l a i n t i f f would r e c e i v e approximately 12.2% of t h e p r o p e r t y accumulated during t h e marriage. P l a i n t i f f argues i n Hodgson v. Hodgson, 156 Mont. 469, 482 P.2d - 140, t h e w i f e r e c e i v e d 70% of t h e accumulated a s s e t s , i n Cook she r e c e i v e d 69% and t h a t i n Johnson v . Johnson, 137 Mont. 11, 349 P.2d 310, t h e Court spoke of an e q u a l d i v i s i o n of t h a t accumul a t e d under 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 a s n o t unreasonable. While i n a l l t h r e e of t h e c i t e d c a s e s we were c o n s i d e r i n g much s m a l l e r accumulations than i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , an argument i s made t h a t under t h e r u l i n g of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e end of a twelve year p e r i o d , a t an age and h e a l t h period when she might need i t most, t h e payments w i l l c e a s e . I n view of t h e u n r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e record a s t o t h e t r u e n e t worth of defendant a t t h e time of t h e marriage and a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e , t h e judgment i s s e t a s i d e . W remand t h i s cause t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i t h d i r e c t i o n s e t o hold a new t r i a l . We concur: Justices \ B Hon. R.D. McPhillips, District Judge, sitting for Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison.

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.