PERKINS v PERKINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12975 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN 1975 INA C. PERKINS, , 1 # . p l a i n t i f f and % ~ ~ ~ 3 i l a n e , T O A N. PERKINS, HMS / / ' . ' Defendant and ~ e s ~ k n d e n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert 3 . Boyd, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Knight, Dahood, Mackay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana Edward D. Yelsa argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Daniels and Mizner, ~ e e Lodge, Montana r M.K. Daniels argued, Deer Lodge, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: k'g: r .)-.. y 6 . ."-. , i , September 1 2 , 1975 SEP 2 4 j,O& Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. In a divorce action in the district court, Deer Lodge County, Hon. Robert J. Boyd sitting without a jury, judgment was entered awarding the wife a divorce, custody of two minor children, and providing for a division of the marital property. The husband appeals from the property division. The district court adopted the wife's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. formity therewith as follows: Judgment was entered in con(1) The sellers' interest of the parties in a contract for deed on some property in Opportunity, Montana, was set aside in trust for the two minor children of the marriage, (2) a Great Lakes Mobile Home in the name of the wife was set aside for her use, (3) a Paramount Mobile Home in the name of both parties was ordered sold and the proceeds equally divided between husband and wife, (4) a 1965 Buick and a 1950 International pickup in the names of both parties was set aside for the use of the wife and the two minor children, (5) the farm equipment owned by both parties was set aside for the use of the husband, (6) two parcels of land in the Opportunity subdivision in the wife's name was set aside for her use and disposition. The husband requests us to review on appeal the disposition of the two trailer houses and the two parcels of land in the Opportunity subdivision. The district court's adjustment of the property rights of the parties under its equitable powers will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. Aksamit v. Aksamit, 162 Mont. 266, 511 P.2d 10; Cook v. Cook, 159 Mont. 98, 495 P.2d 591. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. Each case must be considered by the district court indi- vidually with an eye to its unique circumstances. supra. Cook v. Cook, Here the husband was financially unable to contribute to the support of the minor children, so the wife was granted a proportionately larger share of the marital property to offset her increased obligation. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Justice We concur: ................................. Chief Justice
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.
