TURVILLE v TURVILLE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12871 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1975 BERTIE TURVILLE, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs DAVID TURVILLE, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. D. M c P h i l l i p s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: D z i v i , Conklin, Johnson and Nybo, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana L. D. Nybo a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent: C h a r l e s M. J o s l y n a r g u e d , Choteau, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: r- r , c.: \) .. ; .55 37 March 3 , 1975 -hPf?- 1 '! 9-?s . Mr.. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a d i v o r c e a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Teton County. The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g t h e s a l e of a farm j o i n t l y owned by t h e p a r t i e s i n o r d e r t o compensate t h e w i f e f o r h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y . The p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n , David T u r v i l l e and B e r t i e T u r v i l l e were m a r r i e d on August 20, 1956. born of t h i s m a r r i a g e . was f i l e d were: Four c h i l d r e n were Their ages a t t h e t i m e t h e complaint Daniel, age 17; Walter, age 1 6 ; Laura, age 15; and E a r l a , a g e 1 3 . The farm i n q u e s t i o n c o n s i s t s of 320 a c r e s and i s l o c a t e d n e a r F a i r f i e l d , Montana. I t was o r i g i n a l l y purchased by David and h i s b r o t h e r i n 1954 f o r $37,000. However, s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e m a r r i a g e t h e b r o t h e r ' s i n t e r e s t was p u r c h a s e d by t h e p a r t i e s . I n 1972, t h e e n t i r e farm was r e f i n a n c e d and p l a c e d j o i n t l y i n t h e names of t h e p a r t i e s , p u r s u a n t t o t h e t e r m s o f t h e f i n a n c i n g agreement. The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t d u r i n g t h e y e a r s 1957 t h r o u g h 1971, a p e r i o d of 1 5 y e a r s , t h e f a r m produced a t o t a l n e t income of o n l y $19,171.18. $8,349.09. I n 1972, t h e farm s u s t a i n e d a n e t l o s s of To s u p p o r t a growing f a m i l y d u r i n g t h e s e l e a n y e a r s , t h e w i f e , B e r t i e , w a s compelled t o s e e k o u t s i d e employment i n a d d i t i o n t o a s s i s t i n g David i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e farm. A l l o f E e r t i e t s o f f - f a r m income was c o n t r i b u t e d t o a j o i n t c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t which h e l p e d d e f r a y t h e f a m i l y ' s l i v i n g e x p e n s e s . The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s B e r t i e c o n t r i b u t e d t h e sum of $42,402.35 d u r i n g t h e y e a r s of 1957-1972. During t h o s e same y e a r s , D a v i d ' s main o c c u p a t i o n was t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e f a r m . H i s e f f o r t s t o secure o u t s i d e employment were l a r g e l y f u t i l e b e c a u s e of a h e a r i n g def i c i e n c y of a t l e a s t 50%. I n J a n u a r y 1973, B e r t i e f i l e d f o r a d i v o r c e and p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t f o r c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n ; $50 p e r month a s c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r each c h i l d i n a d d i t i o n t o f u t u r e m e d i c a l and d e n t a l e x p e n s e s of e a c h c h i l d ; a n d , a t t o r n e y f e e s . She a l s o p e t i t i o n e d t o have a s e t t l e m e n t of h e r r i g h t s i n t h e farm. D a v i d ' s answer a l l e g e d , i n t e r a l i a , t h a t it would be i n e q u i t a b l e t o o r d e r a p h y s i c a l d i v i s i o n of t h e farm o r t o d i r e c t t h a t it be s o l d bec a u s e h e was u n a b l e t o p u r s u e any o t h e r o c c u p a t i o n e x c e p t f a r m i n g . O May 11, 1973, t h i s a c t i o n was t r i e d a n d - o n September n 1 2 , 1973, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a d e c r e e which d i s s o l v e d t h e m a r r i a g e ; g r a n t e d c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n t o B e r t i e , a n d , o r d e r e d David t o pay $50 p e r month p e r c h i l d a s c h i l d s u p p o r t , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f u t u r e m e d i c a l and d e n t a l e x p e n s e s of t h e children. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o o r d e r e d t h e farm t o be e q u a l l y d i v i d e d between t h e p a r t i e s . On October 1 9 , 1973, David f i l e d a motion f o r a new t r i a l , o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e c o u r t . On J a n u a r y 11, 1973, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d a new t r i a l upon t h e i s s u e of t h e r e s p e c t i v e p r o p e r t y r i g h t s only. A f t e r a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y was h e a r d , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r mandating t h a t t h e farm and t h e p e r s o n a l prope r t y used i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n be p l a c e d upon t h e market and s o l d . The p r o c e e d s from t h e s a l e were t o be e q u a l l y d i v i d e d between t h e p a r t i e s a f t e r payment of t h e e x p e n s e s o f s a l e , encumbrances a g a i n s t t h e p r o p e r t y and t h e d e b t s of t h e m a r r i a g e e x i s t i n g a s of t h e d a t e o f t h e d i v o r c e . David's c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was reduced from $50 t o $40 p e r month f o r each c h i l d . I t i s from t h i s o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e farm t o b e s o l d t h a t David a p p e a l s . I n Cook v . Cook, 159 Mont. 98, 1 0 4 , 495 P.2d 591, Montana has recognized t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t i n equitably d i v i d i n g t h e property of t h e p a r t i e s t o a d i v o r c e a c t i o n : "Each c a s e must be looked a t by t h e t r i a l c o u r 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 u n i q u e circumstances. " Consequently, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s c l o t h e d with d i s c r e t i o n i n s e t t l i n g t h e r e s p e c t i v e p r o p e r t y r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s . I n P o r t e r v . P o r t e r , 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538, t h i s Court r e c o g n i z e d t h i s d i s c r e t i o n and s t a t e d : " T h i s Court i s w e l l aware of i t s r o l e when asked t o l o o k i n t o m a t t e r s o f a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and we have n o t e d t h e number of c a s e s and o t h e r c i t a t i o n s g i v e n u s by t h e p a r t i e s . W f e e l a n approved composite p o s i t i o n s i m p l y e s t a t e d would be: a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t i s n e v e r justified i n substituting its discretion for that of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e q u e s t i o n i s n o t whether t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t a g r e e s w i t h t h e t r i a l court, but r a t h e r , d i d t h e t r i a l court i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n a c t a r b i t r a r i l y w i t h o u t t h e employment of c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment o r exceed t h e bounds of r e a s o n , i n view of a l l t h e circumstances, ignoring recosnized p r i n c i p l e s resulting i n substantial injustice." W d e c l i n e t o s u b s t i t u t e o u r d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h a t of t h e e d i s t r i c t caurt. Considering t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e a c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was r e a s o n a b l e and r e a l i s t i c , e s p e c i a l l y when t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s a r e shown: 1. The r e a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s on t h e farm were d e l i n q u e n t f o r t h e second h a l f of 1972 and f o r t h e e n t i r e y e a r of 1973. 2. The a n n u a l payment on t h e mortgage f o r t h e y e a r 1974 w a s unpaid and was a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 months d e l i n q u e n t a s of t h e d a t e of t h e second t r i a l . 3. The p a r t i e s ' c u r r e n t d e b t s were q u i t e s u b s t a n t i a l i n view of t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y of t h e farm. 4. B e r t i e ' s t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t David t e n d e d t o p r o c r a s t i n a t e i n s i g n i n g up f o r government programs which would b e n e f i t t h e farm and t h a t he w a s i n c a p a b l e of m a i n t a i n i n g t h e farm by h i m s e l f . When t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e p r e c e d i n g f a c t s , it found t h a t t h e e n t i r e i n v e s t m e n t of t h e p a r t i e s w a s i n s e r i o u s jeopardy and t h e r e was a d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s c o u l d l o s e e v e r y t h i n g , i f p o s i t i v e a c t i o n was n o t taken. C e r t a i n l y , t h e c o u r t ' s a c t i o n c a n n o t be l a b e l e d a s " A r b i t r a r y " o r "exceeding t h e bounds o f r e a s o n " a s c o n t e m p l a t e d by P o r t e r . I n L a t u s v . L a t u s , 163 Mont. 315, 517 P . 2 d 356, 30 S t . Rep. 1 1 2 1 , a d i v o r c e a c t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e husband t o e i t h e r s e l l t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t l y owned house and g i v e t h e w i f e one-half of t h e p r o c e e d s o r t o pay t h e w i f e $10,000 a s h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e house. This Court affirmed t h i s e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n . I n e s s e n c e , t h e same s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s i n t h e i n s t a n t case. David h a s been o r d e r e d t o s e l l t h e farm. However, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n i t s c o n c l u s i o n of law I V p r o v i d e d him w i t h t h i s option : "Should e i t h e r of t h e p a r t i e s c h o o s e t o purc h a s e t h e p r o p e r t y , e i t h e r p a r t y s h a l l have t h e o p t i o n t o meet any and a l l b i d s and t e r m s of t h e s a l e , b u t t h e p a r t y must exceed e i t h e r of t h e o t h e r p a r t y ' s b i d * * *." F i n d i n g no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. Justice W e concur: - U,; 3 ' I . ,&,4hd-'*~ , , u , ""re : -" Chief J u s t i c e , . $ ------..~~&..-2*. , ,, --*~--~-Z-----L-~----'-A.-----&- Justices 'A -

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.