MARRIAGE OF JACOBSON v JACOBSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14728 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF VERNA B. JACOBSON, Petitioner and Respondent, -vsTHEODORE F. JACOBSON, d~i);c~nNi- Respondent and Resptxderrt. Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, Honorable Robert J. Boyd, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For - ~ e t i b i & & , I- Poore, Roth, Robischon & Robinson, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Corette, Smith, Dean, Pohlman & Allen, Butte, Montana James J. Masar, Deer Lodge, Montana -- Submitted on briefs: August 2, 1979 Decided : Clerk iJCI 5 - fgj Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . his i s an a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t d i s s o l v i n g t h e marriage of Theodore and Verna Jacobson and d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e m a r i t a l property of t h e p a r t i e s . The husband a p p e a l s from t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e d e c r e e a f f e c t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n . The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n B u t t e , Montana, on March 1 6 , 1952. A t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , Verna Jacobson was 47 y e a r s o f a g e and Theodore Jacobson was 49. The p a r t i e s have two c h i l d r e n , a son aged 22 r e s i d i n g i n A l a s k a , and a n o t h e r son aged 1 8 who g r a d u a t e d from h i g h s c h o o l i n 1978 and r e s i d e s on t h e f a m i l y r a n c h n e a r Deer Lodge, Montana, i n Powell County. Ted Jacobson was r a i s e d on t h e r a n c h and h i s s o l e o c c u p a t i o n h a s been r a n c h i n g . t h e n i n t h grade. H i s f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n ended i n Verna Jacobson i s a h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u a t e who worked a s a s e c r e t a r y p r i o r t o h e r m a r r i a g e t o Ted. I n 1948 Ted and h i s b r o t h e r formed a p a r t n e r s h i p t o o p e r a t e t h e ranch. I n t h a t y e a r t h e y l e a s e d a p o r t i o n of t h e r a n c h from t h e i r f a t h e r f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f r a i s i n g potatoes. I n 1953 t h e b r o t h e r s and t h e i r wives l e a s e d t h e e n t i r e home r a n c h and bought some c a t t l e from t h e i r f a t h e r , and i n 1959, t h e y p u r c h a s e d t h e r a n c h on a c o n t r a c t f o r deed. The p a r t n e r s h i p c o n t i n u e d u n t i l 1969. Thus, when t h e p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d i n 1952, Ted and h i s b r o t h e r were a l r e a d y i n t h e p r o c e s s of t a k i n g o v e r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e ranch. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t "Ted Jacobson w a s and i s a hard-working and a b l e r a n c h e r . " Through h i s e f f o r t s and knowledge o f t h e b u s i n e s s , t h e v a l u e of t h e Jacobson r a n c h i n c r e a s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y b o t h d u r i n g t h e t i m e i t was o p e r a t e d i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h h i s b r o t h e r and a f t e r t h e partnership terminated in 1969. Throughout the marriage of the parties, Ted did the outside work on the ranch. In addition to the usual ranch work he made substantial improvements to an existing house located on the ranch, and he and his brother later assisted in building a new house in which the parties resided. A significant part of the increased value of the ranch can be attributed to the installation of a lateral irrigation system by Ted and his brother in 1966 and the installation of a sprinkler irrigation system by Ted in 1975. For her part, Verna performed the duties of a ranch wife and homemaker for over 25 years. Although she did not participate in the outside work, she spent great amounts of time caring for her two sons, the elder of whom had heart problems discovered at an early age, and the younger, who was found at an early age to have a serious physical ailment. She spent a considerable amount of time working with the younger son to assist him in completing school. Until 1969 Verna boarded the hired hands, generally feeding them three meals a day in the family home. In addition to these contributions, she did the bookkeeping for the ranch after the partnership between Ted and his brother terminated in 1969, maintaining the ranch record books and accounts, keeping track of ranch income and expenses, paying the bills, paying the ranch help, keeping the records necessary for ranch income withholding, social security, and workers' compensation, and delivering this information to their accountant each year for the purposes of preparing income tax returns. She also occasionally drove to town to pick up ranch supplies. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a f t e r r e c i t i n g t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e m a r r i a g e made by e a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s , concluded t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had made e q u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e and t h a t t h e w i f e had a c q u i r e d a v e s t e d one-half i n t e r e s t i n a l l p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e i r marriage. "None of t h e p r o p e r t y now owned by t h e p a r t i e s was a c q u i r e d d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h i n h e r i t a n c e o r g i f t and t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n a s a homemaker and m o t h e r , along with t h e husband's c o n t r i b u t i o n i n doing work on t h e r a n c h , i s e n t i t l e d t o e q u a l w e i g h t and t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t M r s . Jacobson a c q u i r e d a v e s t e d one-half (1/2) i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y accumulated by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) P u r s u a n t t o t h i s f i n d i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment e n t e r e d on J a n u a r y 25, 1979, g i v e s t h e husband t h e o p t i o n t o purchase t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e m a r i t a l property. The t o t a l m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , c o n s i s t i n g p r i m a r i l y of t h e f a m i l y r a n c h , w a s found t o have a v a l u e o f $1,147,786. Within t h r e e months of t h e d e c r e e , t h e husband h a s t h e o p t i o n t o e i t h e r pay t o t h e w i f e one-half o f t h e t o t a l sum o r t o pay 2 0 p e r c e n t down w i t h t h e b a l a n c e p a y a b l e i n t h i r t y e q u a l a n n u a l i n s t a l l m e n t s w i t h i n t e r e s t a t t h e r a t e of 7 p e r c e n t p e r annum. These i n s t a l l m e n t s a r e t o be s e c u r e d by a mort- gage on a l l r e a l p r o p e r t y . I f t h e husband f a i l s t o e x e r c i s e h i s option t o purchase t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t , t h e property i s t o be s o l d on t h e m a r k e t f o r c a s h a t a p r i c e a g r e e a b l e t o the parties. I f no b u y e r s a r e s e c u r e d , t h e p r o p e r t y i s t o be s o l d a t a p u b l i c s a l e w i t h i n a f u r t h e r t h r e e months from t h e d a t e of t h e decree. The a p p e l l a n t husband r a i s e s two i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n and f a i l t o e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s by n e g l e c t i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e more s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h e husband t o t h e development and m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n p r o v i d i n g a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e a p u r c h a s e by t h e husband o f one-half of t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l a s s e t s a t a n i n t e r e s t r a t e o f 7 p e r c e n t p e r annum? S e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, states i n relevant part: " I n a proceeding f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of a marriage the court shall f i n a l l y equit a b l y a p p o r t i o n between t h e p a r t i e s t h e p r o p e r t y and a s s e t s b e l o n g i n g t o e i t h e r o r b o t h , however and whenever a c q u i r e d and w h e t h e r t i t l e t h e r e t o i s i n t h e name o f t h e husband o r w i f e o r b o t h . I n making a p p o r t i o n m e n t t h e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a q e and [ o t h e r f a c t o r s ] The c o u r t s h a l l a l s o c o n s i d e r . the or to c o n t r i b u t i o n -f -a s p o u s e -s-a homemaker - o a the - f a m i l y u n i t . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) - ... ... . .. ... . . The s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w o f a D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s p o s i t i o n o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s upon a d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e i s w e l l settled: "A D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s f a r - r e a c h i n g d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s o l v i n g p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n s , and i t s judgment w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d u n l e s s a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i s shown. Kaasa v. Kaasa ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 591 P.2d 1110, 1113, 36 St.Rep. 425, Mont. I 428; K r a m e r v. Kramer ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 580 P.2d 439, 35 St.Rep. 700; Eschenburg v . Eschenburg ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 247, 557 P.2d 1014. The t e s t f o r r e v i e w i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n is: Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h e e x e r cise of i t s d i s c r e t i o n act a r b i t r a r i l y without employment o f c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment, o r e x c e e d t h e bounds o f r e a s o n i n view o f a l l t h e circums t a n c e s ? Kuntz, 593 P.2d a t 43; J o r g e n s e n , s u p r a ; K r a m e r , s u p r a ; Z e l l v. Z e l l (1977), Mont. , 570 P.2d 33, 34 St.Rep. 1 0 7 0 ; B e r thiaume v. Berthiaume (1977) , Mont. I 567 P.2d 1388, 34 St.Rep. 921." Aanenson v . Mont. I P.2d Aanenson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , , 36 St.Rep. 1525, 1528. The d u t y o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s t o c o n s i d e r t h e s t a t u t o r y c r i t e r i a and e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e m a r i t a l assets. Each case must b e l o o k e d a t i n d i v i d u a l l y w i t h a n eye t o i t s unique circumstances. Jorgenson Mont. Aanenson, s u p r a ; J o r g e n s o n 36 St.Rep. 233, 237; Cook v. Cook ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 98, 104, 495 P.2d 591. "An e q u a l d i v i s i o n under normal c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o p e r t y accumulated t h r o u g h j o i n t e f f o r t s i s n o t r e g a r d e d a s unreasonable." Cook, 159 Mont. a t 103, 495 P.2d a t 594, q u o t i n g Johnson v. Johnson ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 137 Mont. 11, 1 7 , 349 P.2d 310. See a l s o Z e l l v. Z e l l (1977), 570 P.2d 33, 34 St.Rep. Mont. 1070; Roe v . Roe ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 79, 83, 556 P.2d 1246, 1248. I n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e t a i l e d t h e respective contributions of the p a r t i e s i n i t s findings of T h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o sup- fact. p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s equal d i s t r i b u t i o n a s an e q u i t a b l e a p p o r t i o n m e n t of t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . There was no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e lower c o u r t , which f o l l o w e d t h e s t a t u t o r y mandate of s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, t o "consider .. . t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f a spouse a s a homemaker o r t o t h e f a m i l y unit." A p p e l l a n t ' s second c o n t e n t i o n i s more troublesome. A p p e l l a n t s t a t e s t h a t i t h a s always been t h e p o l i c y of t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e t h a t a farm o r r a n c h s h o u l d be k e p t i n t a c t and o p e r a t e d a s a u n i t . Appellant argues t h a t t h e o p t i o n a f f o r d e d t o him by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o p u r c h a s e h i s former w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a m i l y r a n c h by p a y i n g 20 p e r c e n t down and t h i r t y a n n u a l i n s t a l l m e n t s a t 7 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t i s n o t an economically r e a l i s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e . He c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r a n c h d o e s n o t g e n e r a t e s u f f i c i e n t income t o s u p p o r t such payments, t h a t i t w i l l have t o be s o l d t o s a t i s f y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c r e e , and t h u s , t h a t it w i l l be l o s t t o t h e s o n s of t h e p a r t i e s who a r e opposed t o i t s s a l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e younger s o n , who i s now working on t h e ranch. I t is a l l e g e d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e District Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . I t i s c l e a r t h a t a D i s t r i c t C o u r t may make a n e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and y e t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c a r r y i n g o u t t h e award. (1978) , , - Mont. I n Kruse v. Kruse 586 P.2d 294, 298, 35 St.Rep. 1502, 1507, t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y made a n e q u a l a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , b u t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e a s s e t s a t t h e i r c u r r e n t m a r k e t v a l u e which r e s u l t e d i n t h e w i f e r e c e i v i n g less t h a n h e r e q u a l s h a r e . Montana c a s e s have a c c e p t e d t h e p r e m i s e t h a t a r a n c h o r farm s h o u l d be k e p t i n t a c t and o p e r a t e d a s a u n i t . A policy t o t h a t e f f e c t is reflected i n decisions involving the d i s p o s i t i o n o f f a r m i n g and r a n c h i n g p r o p e r t y : Kaasa (1979) , St.Rep. , Mont. , Kaasa v. 591 P.2d 1 1 1 0 , 1113, 36 425, 428; I n r e M a r r i a g e o f Brown ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 587 P.2d 361, 35 St.Rep. Mont. 1733; B i e g a l k e v. B i e g a l k e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 311, 564 P.2d 987; Hunnewell v . Hunnewell ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 1 2 5 , 500 P.2d 1198, 1202. Biegalke involved f a c t s similar t o those i n t h e p r e s e n t case. In referring t o the District Court's property d i s t r i - b u t i o n whereby t h e husband was g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p u r c h a s e h i s former w i f e ' s m a r i t a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a m i l y f a r m by making a down payment and p a y i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g balance i n annual i n s t a l l m e n t s , t h i s Court s t a t e d , " [ t l h e d i v i s i o n w a s based on t h e premise t h a t t h e ranch be k e p t i n t a c t and o p e r a t e d . " B i e g a l k e , 172 Mont. a t 314. Likewise i n Hunnewell, where t h e c o u p l e moved o n t o t h e r a n c h which had been owned by t h e h u s b a n d ' s f a t h e r and where t h e husband had been a r a n c h e r a l l h i s l i f e , t h e c o u r t gave t h e husband t h e o p t i o n t o m e e t a l l b i d s t o purchase h i s former w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e by making a down payment and paying t h e remaining b a l a n c e i n annual i n s t a l l m e n t s , s t a t i n g "[tlhe purpose of this provision is to permit [the husband] to continue to ranch and farm the premises without being met with a sudden emergency to raise money, the Court being aware that all the property is presently mortgaged and such an emergency demand might cause hardship." Hunnewell, 500 P.2d 1202. The District Court valued the marital estate, consisting primarily of the family ranch, at $1,147,786 and found that Verna Jacobson was entitled to one-half of that property as her marital share. Pursuant to this finding, the District Court's judgment gives Ted Jacobson the option to purchase Verna's interest in the marital property. Within three months of the decree, the husband must purchase her share by paying her one-half of the total sum in cash, or exercise his option to pay her 20 percent down with the balance payable annually in 30 equal installments with interest at 7 percent, the installments secured by a mortgage on the real property. Otherwise, the ranch will be sold on the market or at a public sale to generate cash to satisfy Verna's marital share. Translated to dollar amounts, the installment option entails annual installments of approximately $34,000. Appellant contends that this amount is practically equivalent to the total annual cash income of the ranch before purchases of equipment are taken into consideration. He argues that after the purchase of necessary replacement equipment, annual cash income for the ranch has averaged about $16,000 per year. Therefore, according to appellant, the ranch does not generate sufficient income to support the installment payments that would be required under the purchase option given him by the District Court, and so the District Court allegedly abused its discretion. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , w h i l e i t d i d make e x t e n s i v e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t c o n c e r n i n g t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and e a c h p a r t y ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t h e r e t o , d i d n o t make a f i n d i n g t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t i t would be f i n a n c i a l l y p o s s i b l e f o r a p p e l l a n t t o s a t i s f y t h e judgment s h o r t o f s e l l i n g t h e r a n c h . It is, however, i m p l i c i t i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment t h a t t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s i n t h e d e c r e e t o be econ o m i c a l l y r e a l i s t i c c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r a n c h ' s income-producing c a p a c i t y and i t s borrowing c a p a c i t y . There i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence i n t h e record t o support such a conclusion; t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e was no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e i n s t a l l m e n t purchase o p t i o n i s an economically r e a l i s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e i s a s follows: (1) t h e r a n c h i s unen- cumbered s a v e f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c r e e , from which t h e c o u r t may have i n f e r r e d t h a t i t s borrowing c a p a c i t y i s h i g h ; ( 2 ) t h e h u s b a n d ' s b r o t h e r and former p a r t n e r i n t h e r a n c h i s a r a n c h e r and a banker who might be a b l e t o p r o c u r e a l o a n o r l e n d money f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f t h e w i f e ' s i n t e r e s t ; (3) t h e r e i s a c a s h a s s e t h e l d i n t r u s t by one of t h e a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e w i f e i n t h e amount of $ 3 3 , 7 9 2 l e s s c e r t a i n e x p e n s e s , r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e s a l e of c a t t l e i n t h e p r e vious year; ( 4 ) t h e c a s h income of t h e r a n c h h a s a v e r a g e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $35,000 a y e a r b e f o r e equipment p u r c h a s e s , and $16,000 a f t e r p u r c h a s e s o f equipment; and ( 5 ) t h e p a r t i e s ' a c c o u n t a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e maximum a n n u a l payment t h a t a n o p e r a t o r of t h e r a n c h c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d t o pay o u t o f r a n c h income t o p u r c h a s e a n e q u i t y i n t h e r a n c h would b e t h e t o t a l c a s h f l o w income of t h e r a n c h . ~t must be remembered t h a t t h e p r i m a r y r i g h t t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d i s p o s i n g of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i s t h e r i g h t of each p a r t y t o an e q u i t a b l e apportionment of t h e m a r i t a l assets. While i t i s t h e p o l i c y of t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e t o a v o i d s p l i t t i n g up a r a n c h o r f o r c i n g i t s s a l e where t h e r e i s any r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t p o l i c y , however commendable, c a n n o t be used t o o v e r r i d e t h e w i f e ' s r i g h t t o a n e q u i t a b l e s h a r e of t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y . In the present c a s e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t gave t h e husband t h e o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e h i s former w i f e ' s s h a r e by p a y i n g 20 p e r c e n t down and p a y i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g b a l a n c e i n a n n u a l i n s t a l l m e n t s o v e r t h i r t y years a t 7 percent interest. age. The w i f e i s 47 y e a r s of A payment s c h e d u l e o f more t h a n t h i r t y y e a r s would n o t a l l o w h e r t o r e c e i v e t h e e q u a l m a r i t a l s h a r e t o which s h e i s e n t i t l e d w i t h i n h e r l i f e expectancy. The 7 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t r a t e i s below t h a t c h a r g e d by commercial and governmental l e n d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s , The c a s e o f I n re M a r r i a g e o f Brown (1978) Mont. , 587 P.2d 361, 367, 35 St.Rep. 1733, merely suggested t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court could o r d e r t h e remaining balance p a i d without i n t e r e s t . I t d i d not say t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t a l l o w i n t e r e s t , and t h e a l l o w a n c e of i n t e r e s t l i e s w i t h i n t h e c o u r t ' s sound d i s c r e tion. s /4 a f f i r m e d . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t W e concur:

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.