MARRIAGE OF SCHULTZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-431 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1982 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F DOROTHEA J. SCBULTZ, P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t , - VSJACOB SCHULTZ, Respondent and R e s p o n d e n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of 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 , I n and. f o r t h e County o f B i g Morn, The H o n o r a b l e Diane G . B a r z , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l of Record: For Appellant: Anderson, Edwards & Molloy, B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent : K r o n m i l l e r a n d S e y k o r a , H a r d i n , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: BUG 11.59fjz J u n e 1 7 , 1982 A U ~ U S11, ~ 1982 J u s t i c e John Court. Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d Mr. t h e O p i n i o n of the A c t i o n commenced by w i f e s e e k i n g d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e and a property division. the Thirteenth Yellowstone. Judicial Findings e n t e r e d A p r i l 22, directed P e t i t i o n e r f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of of 1981, duration of various locations Jake) and for t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e i r marriage in has they south-central a second County law of Appeal couple I and of were followed property. s i n 1936. farmed For the ranched Montana. grade ( h e r e i n a f t e r D o r o t h e a ) was g r a d u a t e d the conclusions t h i s a c t i o n were m a r r i e d to 43-year (hereinafter fact and f o l l o w e d by j u d g m e n t . s p e c i f i c a l l y to The p a r t i e s in District at Respondent education. Appellant from h i g h s c h o o l . Due t h e p a r t i e s 1 wide d i f f e r e n c e i n e d u c a t i o n s , to Dorothea handled t h e management and f i n a n c e s o f t h e o p e r a t i o n s w h i l e J a k e c o n c e n t r a t e d on the day-to-day were h a r d Dorothea t h e i r debt-ridden At functions. workers The and record attempted shows b o t h to make the Jake and best of business. t h e t i m e a p p e l l a n t f i l e d h e r p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e , and p a r t i e s w e r e f a r m i n g and r a n c h i n g n o r t h of H a r d i n , Montana, on 160 acres known as the Orser Place. The their parties home place which they L a t e r , a n o t h e r 1 1 7 a c r e s were p u r c h a s e d from D o r o t h e a l s f a t h e r . purchased w i t h t h e h e l p of the son, Robert S c h u l t z , improved and equipped known a s the home p l a c e b y b o r r o w i n g s u b s t a n t i a l a m o u n t s o f money f r o m t h e FHA and t h e PCA. I n a d d i t i o n t h e y used f u n d s which D o r o t h e a r e c e i v e d i n a personal i n j u r y s e t t l e m e n t and f r o m money i n h e r i t e d from h e r uncle. The p a r t i e s a c c u m u l a t e d a h e r d o f c a t t l e on t h e r a n c h which i n c l u d e d f o u r separate b r a n d s : 1. B a r D Lazy K , r e g i s t e r e d to D o r o t h e a S c h u l t z ; 2. Lazy D J B a r , r e g i s t e r e d to J a c o b and D o r o t h e a S c h u l t z ; 3. B a r CB, r e g i s t e r e d to P a t r i c i a Thomas; 4. S l a s h CC, r e g i s t e r e d t o R o b e r t and D o r o t h e a S c h u l t z ; The o w n e r s h i p o f these is d i s p u t e d . four brands The B a r D L a z y K b r a n d was f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1950 b y Dorothea S c h u l t z . In brand 1971, Dorothea transferred J a k e upon r e q u e s t b y t h e the FHA t o q u a l i f y l o a n was r e l e a s e d J a k e a s s i g n e d The L a z y dispute. DJ to a j o i n t brand w i t h his for a loan. i n t e r e s t back t o Dorothea. i s j o i n t l y owned b y D o r o t h e a and J a k e w i t h o u t Bar c a t t l e b r a n d e d B a r CB were p u r c h a s e d The When t h e D o r o t h e a and t h e n sold i n 1961 by t o t h e d a u g h t e r P a t r i c i a Thomas. Since t h e n t h e b r a n d h a s a l w a y s b e e n r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e d a u g h t e r ' s name. When the brand Bar C cows were c a l v e d - o u t B through the years, some o f t h e c a l v e s were s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s u s e d b y J a k e and Dorothea The c a t t l e b r a n d e d S l a s h C were C in their operations. p u r c h a s e d b y D o r o t h e a i n 1 9 7 5 . D o r o t h e a o b t a i n e d a l o a n from t h e L i t t l e Horn Bank t o p a y f o r t h e c a t t l e . the loan, the son, Robert Schultz, When s h e c o u l d n ' t r e p a y repaid g a v e him a b i l l o f s a l e f o r t h e c a t t l e . t h e b a n k and D o r o t h e a The c a t t l e were b r a n d e d S l a s h CC and t h e b r a n d was r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e names o f R o b e r t and Dorothea S c h u l t z . I n t h e District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h e t o t a l n e t w o r t h of t h e p a r t i e s to be b e t ween $ 9 4 , 1 1 6 . 5 1 and $ 1 5 3 , 5 9 9 . 5 1 . The d i f f e r e n c e i n amount is due to real different appraisals of the estate and cattle. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g is as f o l l o w s : RECAP ASSETS Real Property L e s s s a l e o f 59% i n t e r e s t $242,375.00 - 59,000.00 t o $276,060.00 - 59,000.00 Machinery Crops Livestock Brand -Dz B r a n d 38,730.00 to 45,300.00 Brand 9,450.00 to 10,900.00 16,500.00 to 18,650.00 /CC 0 J - Brand The 8,729.33 Sub-Total Less $59,000.00, 59% i n t e r e s t s a l e of to -- 8 , 7 2 9 . 3 3 355,614.33 Check to 415,097.33 - 59,000.00 - ,000.00 59 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES FHA $180,030.17 L i t t l e Horn S t a t e Rank 14,722.65 Miscellaneous TOTAL LIABILITIES NET WORTH OF PARTIES TOGETHER Assets $296,614.33 t o $356,097.33 TOTAL In the j udgmen t the District Court ordered : ". . . t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e marital e s t a t e , b o t h r e a l and p e r s o n a l , i n c l u d i n g CB a n d /CC b r a n d c a t t l e s h a l l be s o l d , and a f t e r payment o f a l l i n d e b t e d n e s s h e r e i n t h e n e t p r o c e e d s s h a l l be d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s e x c e p t p e t i t i o n e r is e n t i t l e d t o b e p a i d $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 o v e r and a b o v e r e s p o n d e n t ' s s h a r e . . . "Sale of property s e t f o r t h i n the previous p a r a g r a p h s h a l l be accomplished by mutual a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d to t h i s Court. I f no a g r e e m e n t is r e a c h e d , t h e c o u r t s h a l l set t h e g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e sale. The c o u r t would r a t i f y a n a g r e e m e n t a l l o w i n g t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s t o r e t a i n t h e 'home p l a c e , ' if t h e p a r t i e s c a n d o so, g i v i n g r e s p o n d e n t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e .I' From t h i s judgment p e t i t i o n e r a p p e a l s . The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w are: 1. W h e t h e r t h e c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n to i n c l u d e w i t h i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e and t o d i v i d e and o r d e r s o l d t h e c a t t l e owned by and branded i n t h e names o f the adult children, Robert Schultz a n d P a t r i c i a Thomas. 2. Whether the court abused its discretion and acted c o n t r a r y t o t h e e v i d e n c e when it i n c l u d e d w i t h t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e the cattle with the wife's s e p a r a t e and personal brand, Bar D Lazy K. 3. Whether the court abused its d i s c r e t i o n in failing to g i v e t h e w i f e t h e r i g h t to p u r c h a s e t h e home r a n c h b e f o r e subj e c t i n g it t o f o r c e d l i t i g a t i o n . Appellant argues the Court e r r e d by i n c l u d i n g District b r a n d s S l a s h CC and B a r CB, the r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s names, i n t o t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . T h e r e is no d i s p u t e t h a t t h e b r a n d , Bar CB i s r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e name o f t h a t the brand, t h e d a u g h t e r , P a t r i c i a Thomas, o r S l a s h CC i s r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e names of t h e son, R o b e r t S c h u l t z and D o r o t h e a S c h u l t z . A p p e l l a n t c i t e s s e c t i o n 1-1-101, MCA: "A p e r s o n , f i r m or c o r p o r a t i o n i n whose name a m a r k or b r a n d i s r e c o r d e d i s e n t i t l e d to t h e e x c l u s i v e u s e o f t h e mark o r b r a n d o n t h e s p e c i e s o f a n i m a l and i n t h e p o s i t i o n d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e r e c o r d . A copy of t h e record c e r t i f i e d b y t h e d e p a r t m e n t is prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e of and t h e is al t h i s r i g h t , - - c e r t i f i c a t e - -s o p r i m a f a c i e e v i d e n c e -t - p e r s o n , - m o-cort h a the fir - r p e r a t i o n e n t i t l e d - -e-h e mark o r b r a n d i s to us t - t h e e r - -l a n i m a l s o n w h i c h i t a p p e a r s of al i n -e p o s i t i o n -d -n- h e s p e c i e s o f a n i m a l th an o t stated in the (Emphasis - c e r t i f i c a t e .I1 supplied . ) s e c t i o n was o r i g i n a l l y e n a c t e d This of Laws Montana ( 1 9 2 1 ) , c o d i f i e d as S e c t i o n 5, as S e c t i o n 3 3 0 5 , Ch. case o f S t a t e v. Keays ( 1 9 3 4 ) r 97 Mont. C o u r t c i t e d t h e s e c t i o n and s t a t e d : c e r t i f i c a t e s mentioned 404, 1921. R.C.M. The l a n g u a g e h a s r e m a i n e d unchanged s i n c e i t s e n a c t m e n t . 34 P.2d 144 In the 855, this "Defendant argues t h a t the i n t h e a b o v e s e c t i o n were t h e b e s t e v i - d e n c e o f o w n e r s h i p , and t h a t i t was e r r o r to a d m i t t h e o r a l t e s t i mony of Rafesty upon this question. is It true that the c e r t i f i c a t e s s p e c i f i e d by t h e s t a t u t e s would h a v e b e e n t h e b e s t evidence. The a d m i s s i o n of such c e r t i f i c a t e s did constitute T h i s b e i n g a c r i m i n a l case, which w e could r e v e r s e . is the best evidence t h e o r a l t e s t i m o n y i n t h e p l a c e of least a technical error." t h e C o u r t found o t h e r g r o u n d s upon However, of at the rule t h a t the c e r t i f i c a t e ownership has never been overruled. T h a t d o e s n o t mean t h a t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n of o w n e r s h i p c a n n o t be r e b u t t e d . 1 0 1 P.2d 64, I n B o h a r t v. Songer e t a l . ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 1 1 0 Mont. 405, " [ n ] ow t h e r e c o r d e d b r a n d e s t a b l i s h e s we stated: p r i m a facie proof of ownership on which such brand a p p e a r s . Of c o u r s e , t h e p r i m a f a c i e e v i d e n c e o f o w n e r s h i p c a n be o v e r c o m e by s a t i s f a c t o r y evidence of t i c u l a r animal." transfer or relinquishment of a par- I n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e of t r a n s f e r o r relinquishment of the disputed have always been i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s brands. The b r a n d s names and t h u s t h e c h i l d r e n are presumed t h e owners. R e s p o n d e n t now claims he h a s a n " i n t e r e s t 1 ' i n t h e d i s p u t e d b r a n d s b e c a u s e he fed and w a t e r e d t h e c a t t l e and them on h i s l a n d . H e cites no a u t h o r i t y which s u b s t a n t i a t e s t h i s claim of ownership. Respondent acknowledged were registered owners the the their ownership u n t i l the of brands t o o k care of that and the never d i s s o l u t i o n proceeding. children contested The record s h o w s t h e p a r e n t s s o l d c a l v e s from t h e d a u g h t e r ' s b r a n d , Bar CB, a n d t h e p r o c e e d s were u s e d record does calves. of show that the was daughter the ranch. repaid cattle without the proceeds e q u i t a b l e payment. compensation these from the as i t seems t h e p a r e n t s daughter's calf sales W e f i n d no merit i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s t i o n when it i n c l u d e d marital estate. the wife's The p e r s o n a l brand of standard d i v i s i o n i n a d i s s o l u t i o n decreed for reviewing by a D i s t r i c t provided contentions. A p p e l l a n t n e x t a r g u e s t h e District Court abused the for The R e s p o n d e n t c a n n o t a r g u e he w a t e r e d , f e d and p a s t u r e d t h e children's use not i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of its discre- cattle with the property C o u r t is w e l l s e t t l e d i n M o n t a n a . The a p p o r t i o n m e n t made b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t will n o t be d i s t u r b e d on r e v i e w u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been a c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n as m a n i f e s t e d b y a s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n e q u i t a b l e division of injustice. the marital assets resulting in substantial I n R e M a r r i a g e o f Brown ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 417, 587 P.2d 3 6 1 , 3 6 4 ; I n R e M a r r i a g e o f B l a i r ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 8 Mont. 2 2 0 , 583 P.2d 4 0 3 , 405; V i v i a n v. V i v i a n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 8 Mont. 1072, 1074. The d u t y o f 3 4 1 , 5 8 3 P.2d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t is to c o n s i d e r t h e statutory 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 marital assets. Each case m u s t 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 e y e to i t s uniI n Re Marriage of J a c o b s o n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , que circumstances. - - , 600 P.2d 1183, Aanenson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - S e c t i o n 40-4-202, 1186, 35 S t . R e p . , Mont. 1773, 1776; Mont . - Aanenson v. 5 9 8 P.2d 1 1 2 0 , 36 S t . R e p . 1525, MCA s t a t e s : " I n a p r o c e e d i n g f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of a m a r r i a g e the court , shall finally e q u i t a b l y a - -p o r t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s t h e p p r o p e r t y - and a s s e t s b e l o n g i n g - e i t h e r o r to both, however - whenever and acquired and w h e t h e r t i t l e t h e r e t o - i n - - - - the is t h e name o f husband or wife or both. In making a p p o r t i o n m e n t , t h e court s h a l l consider the d u r a t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g 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 t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n or d i s s i p a t i o n of v a l u e of t h e and t h e of a r e s p e c t i v e estates - - c o n t r i b u t i o n - s p o u s e a s a homemaker o r - -e f a m i l y u n i t . " to th ( Emphasis added. ) . . . . . . . . . . . T h i s s e c t i o n makes i t c l e a r t h a t t h e s o u r c e of marital p r o p e r t y perty and t i t l e to i s i r r e l e v a n t as t o t h e d i v i s i o n o f upon d i s s o l u t i o n o f marriage. s u c h pro- I n Re Marriage of Brown, The s t a t u t e s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t m u s t supra. e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e a s s e t s no matter i n whose name l i e s t i t l e or f o r what s o u r c e a c q u i r e d . we a p p l y s e c t i o n 40-4-202, The s e c t i o n is n o t a m b i g u o u s . the MCA, r e l e v a n t case law When to the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r u l i n g w e f i n d no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n b u t r a t h e r a c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e l a w . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s s e c t i o n 40-2-201, claim o f ownership t o h e r brand of MCA, cattle, s u p p o r t s the wife I s t h e B a r D Lazy K . T h i s s e c t i o n s t a t e s , " N e i t h e r husband n o r wife h a s any i n t e r e s t in the property 40-2-102, of the other, as m e n t i o n e d in section b u t n e i t h e r c a n be e x c l u d e d from t h e o t h e r ' s d w e l l i n g u n l e s s e n j o i n e d by a c o u r t . " apply except in a proceeding S e c t i o n 40-2-201, for disposition MCA, of does not property. A p p e l l a n t claims t h a t r e s p o n d e n t had no i n t e r e s t i n h e r p e r s o n a l b r a n d o f c a t t l e and s o e x p r e s s e d i n a b i l l o f s a l e o f which purported to relinquish m a r i t a l estate. his interest S e c t i o n 40-4-202, in MCA, virtually all of the calls f o r an equitable division of the marital estate however o r whenever a c q u i r e d held. I n Re Marriage of 592 P.2d ticular of the court, o r i n whose Houtchens 1 5 8 , 1 6 0 , 36 S t . R e p . brand by 501, name regardless of the property is ( 1 9 7 9 ) , ---- Mon t I Whether or n o t a par- 503. c a t t l e was r e g i s t e r d . ---- in the wife's name, or w h e t h e r t h e r e was a q u e s t i o n a b l e b i l l o f s a l e which p a s s e d a l l of t h e h u s b a n d ' s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t o t h e w i f e h a s no b e a r i n g o n t h e d i v i s i o n of s e c t i o n 40-4-202, p r o p e r t y mandate of Aside MCA. from t h e i n c l u s i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c a t t l e i n t h e marital e s t a t e w e f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n i t s property division. Finally, appellant argues the District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o g i v e h e r t h e r i g h t to p u r c h a s e t h e home r a n c h b e f o r e s u b j e c t i n g it to f o r c e d l i t i g a t i o n . the Court 's District j udgmen t Paragraph 5 of as reads follows : "5. S a l e of p r o p e r t y s e t f o r t h i n the prev i o u s p a r a g r a p h s h a l l be a c c o m p l i s h e d b y m u t u a l agreement of t h e p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d to t h i s court. I f no a g r e e m e n t is r e a c h e d , t h e c o u r t s h a l l set t h e g u i d e l i n e s f o r the sale. The c o u r t would r a t i f y a n a g r e e m e n t a l l o w i n g P e t i t i o n e r t o r e t a i n t h e 'home p l a n t i f p a r t i e s can do s o , g i v i n g respondent h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e marital e s t a t e . " I t d o e s n o t a p p e a r t h a t f o r c e d s a l e o f t h e r a n c h was t h e o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e as t h e a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s . room allowed the parties terms. It seems t h e The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c l e a r l y to n e g o t i a t e parties would a buy-out on their have an i n t e r e s t own i n nego- t i a t i n g t h e i r own terms a s t h e y a r e i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to know w h a t t h e y c a n a f f o r d and w h a t t h e y f e e l t h e i r i n t e r e s t is w o r t h . T h e i r i n c e n t i v e s h o u l d be t o a v o i d a f o r c e d sale which m i g h t n o t be as fruitful as a s a l e from o n e p a r t y to t h e o t h e r . Here f o r c e d s a l e was n o t o r d e r e d u n l e s s t h e p a r t i e s c o u l d n o t r e a c h a n agreement. For the We find no error above r e a s o n s , in the w e remand District Court's the to t h e D i s t r i c t case ruling. C o u r t t o m o d i f y t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n by e x c l u d i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c a t t l e from t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . W e concur: %bcwa4&-eQ Chief ~ u s t i c e K U...dL4 9P~ul.""I, i Justices /

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.