TUREMAN v TUREMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-121 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 LIN TUREMAN, Petitioner and ~espondent, VS . SALLY TUREMAN, Appellant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial ~istrict, Honorable Joseph B. Gary, Judge presiding. In and for the County of Gallatin. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Morrow, Sedivy, Olson and Scully, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Larry D. Whitman, West Yellowstone, Montana Submitted on briefs: August 13, 1980 Clerk - Mr. J u s t i c e Court. Daniel J. S a l l y Tureman, Shea delivered t h e w i f e of the Opinion L i n Tureman, of the a p p e a l s from t h e p o r t i o n o f a m a r r i a g e d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e e n t e r e d by t h e G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t s h e was n o t entitled a to share of the husband s i n c e t h e p a r t i e s ' property accumulated by the separation eight years earlier. S h e a l s o a p p e a l s from t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t h a t s h e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s f o r the previous eight years. The focal point W a f f i r m t h e judgment. e of the wife's is contentions two a g r e e m e n t s e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e p a r t i e s when t h e y s e p a r a t e d . One of t h e s e a g r e e m e n t s g a v e c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s c h i l d t o t h e w i f e and r e q u i r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y $75 p e r month i n child support. where the The o t h e r a g r e e m e n t was a b u y - o u t husband would s h a r e of t h e p a r t i e s ' West Y e l l o w s t o n e . pay $22,400 to major a s s e t , a b a r agreement the wife for her and r e s t a u r a n t i n The w i f e c o n t e n d s t h e s e c o n d a g r e e m e n t was n o t a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t and s h o u l d n o t h a v e been r e c o g n i z e d a s s u c h by contends both agreements e n t e r e d i n t o by means o f and are thus a c c u m u l a t e d by void. the She the are trial court. She f u r t h e r unconscionable, and were f r a u d , d u r e s s and undue i n f l u e n c e requests husband since one-half the of the estate s e p a r a t i o n and asks t h a t s h e be g i v e n back c h i l d s u p p o r t o f $200 p e r month. The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a common l a w m a r r i a g e a r o u n d 1957. T h e r e was one c h i l d b o r n t o t h e m a r r i a g e , the child h a s s i n c e t u r n e d 1 8 , j o i n e d t h e m i l i t a r y and i s f i n a n c i a l l y independent. During the marriage, the couple earned a l i v i n g t h r o u g h v a r i o u s means i n c l u d i n g g a m b l i n g and d e a l i n g cards. In 1968, t h e y borrowed money l i c e n s e and t a k e a l e a s e on a b a r . t o acquire a liquor Shortly afterwards, they added a restaurant. In 1970, the parties separated permanently. A c o n t r a c t d a t e d A p r i l 1 5 , 1970 was s i g n e d whereby t h e wife agreed t o s e l l her t h e husband. interest in the bar-restaurant to The b u s i n e s s was g i v e n a n e t v a l u e o f $ 4 4 , 8 0 0 . The h u s b a n d a g r e e d t o p a y t h e w i f e o n e - h a l f o f t h a t amount i n c a s h i n s t a l l m e n t s o v e r t h e n e x t f o u r y e a r s a t which t i m e t h e w i f e would s i g n o v e r t o him h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e l i q u o r license. $50,000 He in also debts agreed on to the 15, 1970, responsibility bar-restaurant d e l i n q u e n t l e a s e payments. April assume and for $10,000 in By a s e c o n d a g r e e m e n t a l s o d a t e d t h e w i f e assumed c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d and t h e h u s b a n d a g r e e d t o p a y t h e w i f e $75 p e r month f o r c h i l d support. A Bozeman ments. a t t o r n e y a s s i s t e d i n preparing t h e s e agree- Both p a r t i e s v i g o r o u s l y a s s e r t t h a t h e was c o n t a c t e d f i r s t by t h e o t h e r p a r t y , and t h e n a c t e d s o l e l y on b e h a l f o f that party. however. The evidence does not support e i t h e r side, The a t t o r n e y was a v a i l a b l e and t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l . R e l y i n g m o s t l y on h i s own r e c o r d s , h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e had r e p r e s e n t e d t h e w i f e on p r e v i o u s m a t t e r s , b u t i n t h i s c a s e , h e was not further s u r e which p a r t y had testified that bargaining process, c o n t a c t e d him f i r s t . b o t h p a r t i e s had been part of He the and t h e a g r e e m e n t had b e e n r e w r i t t e n a c o u p l e of t i m e s c h a n g i n g t e r m s b e n e f i c i a l t o b o t h p a r t i e s . The trial court $22,400 t o t h e w i f e , found that the husband cafe, and l a t e r , pay the and t h a t i n 1 9 7 4 , s h e s i g n e d o v e r h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e l i q u o r l i c e n s e t o him. s e p a r a t i o n i n 1970, did the wife has a bar of h e r own. Since t h e time of invested t h e money By t h e time of h o w e v e r , s h e had e i t h e r l o s t o r g i v e n i t a l l away. in a trial, S h e was employed a t s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t j o b s f o l l o w i n g t h e s e p a r a t i o n . S h e was a t r u c k d r i v e r , a w a i t r e s s , a n d a n a s s i s t a n t m a n a g e r of a pizza parlor earning $1,000 per She was A t the time month. a p p a r e n t l y unable t o s a v e any o f h e r e a r n i n g s . of d i s s o l u t i o n , she claimed only $1,600 worth of a s s e t s . The husband, on the other hand, was more successful financially. H e s t a y e d i n West Y e l l o w s t o n e a n d c o n t i n u e d t o operate bar the and restaurant. By time the of the d i s s o l u t i o n , he had p a i d o f f most o f h i s d e b t s , had i n v e s t e d i n a commercial f i s h i n g b o a t , of a n d was m a k i n g t a x a b l e i n c o m e $15,000 t o $18,000 per y e a r . The t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d h i s a s s e t s t o be worth $187,000. The t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h e w i f e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a share of t h e s e a s s e t s . equally divided when I t found t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y had been the parties separated and that the h u s b a n d was e n t i t l e d t o a l l t h e p r o p e r t y h e h a d a c c u m u l a t e d s i n c e t h a t time. The w i f e was n o t f o r g o t t e n , trial t h a t by court found reason of f o o d and r e s t a u r a n t b u s i n e s s , though. The h e r background i n t h e s h e would be a b l e t o make a living for herself with additional training a s a chef. trial court school for awarded two her years awarding maintenance, $600 per to become a month chef. while In The attending addition to t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t s h e was w i t h o u t s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s t o pay h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s and o r d e r e d the husband t o pay t h e s e f e e s . The w i f e ' s f i r s t a p p r o a c h w a s t o a t t a c k t h e a g r e e m e n t s . She a s s e r t e d b e f o r e sell her property interest the t r i a l court that in the bar-restaurant settlement to concerning were, a marital assertion t h e c h i l d c u s t o d y and agreements was n o t S h e made s i m i l a r agreement. however, t h e agreement entered support agreement. i n t o with Both separation in mind and b o t h a c c o m p l i s h e d w h a t was e x p e c t e d t o h a p p e n as a result of separation. These agreements were intended to include a d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s . The w i f e d i d not prove otherwise. The w i f e a l s o a t t a c k s t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t it i s u n c o n s c i o n a b l e , on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t d u r e s s and u n d u e therefore void. influence, was was s i g n e d u n d e r fraudulently procured, and T h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e had b e e n b e a t e n s e v e r a l times b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d a n d t h a t s h e was i n fear of further beatings. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e s i g n e d t h e a g r e e m e n t s o u t o f f e a r o f b e i n g b e a t e n and b e c a u s e s h e f e l t she might l o s e her c h i l d . denied counsel contends at that time. On this the that trial court erred in agreement void. The She f u r t h e r a l l e g e s s h e w a s basis, not she finding now this The h u s b a n d r e f u t e s t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s . agreement itself appears fair its face. on The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t n o t o n l y d i d t h e husband a g r e e t o pay t h e w i f e 50 p e r c e n t o f t h e n e t v a l u e o f t h e i r a s s e t s , b u t h e a l s o assumed trial some $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 record does not i n d e b t s on establish the fraud, business. undue The influence, duress or unconscionability. The n e x t l i n e o f that the t r i a l a t t a c k by t h e w i f e court erred i n not considering s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, pre-existing custody allows and the property support court considering such vocational s k i l l s , But the effect considered. of the distribution equitably divide as estate, of the the effect. age, the not find child This statute marital assets health, separation occupation, agreement PICA, be agreement t h e agreement must be r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e terms binding upon p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e terms a r e n o t u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . court did and and l i a b i l i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s . S e c t i o n 40-4-201, separation the factors agreement in things assertion e v e n t h o u g h t h e r e was a MCA, agreement to is h e r the court The t r i a l t o be u n c o n s c i o n a b l e and t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t r e f l e c t an e r r o r in his failure t o do SO. The trial court found that the major assets of the p a r t i e s had been e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e d i n 1970 by a g r e e m e n t . It a l s o f o u n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was e n t i t l e d t o h i s s u b s e q u e n t a c q u i s i t i o n s of to p r o p e r t y and t h e a p p r e c i a t i o n i n v a l u e d u e inflation. The wife e n t i t l e d t o a s h a r e of t h e b a s i s of t h e i r marriage. s e p a r a t e ways. found parties, estate does not that that salesman value the that she is S i n c e 1970, t h e marriage has p a r t i e s had l o n g s i n c e g o n e t h e i r give the wife rights she did not The t r i a l c o u r t r e v i e w e d what happened t h e r e had and t h u s current claim The l a p s e o f t i m e from t h e s e p a r a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r w i s e have. 1970, now t h e h u s b a n d ' s a c c u m u l a t e d e s t a t e on only existed legally--the dissolution cannot are trial bound testified of the been fair d e a l i n g s between by their on t h e w i f e ' s bar-restaurant. court erred agreements. behalf The A as wife to in the real the maintains i n not using t h a t value i n its f i n d i n g s , b u t r a t h e r a c c e p t i n g t h e l o w e r v a l u e g i v e n by t h e husband. W note t h e salesman d i d only a quick a p p r a i s a l . e He f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t a s o n l y a l e a s e hold i n t e r e s t e x p i r i n g i n 1 9 8 1 , and h e d i d n o t e x a m i n e t h e business records to determine the profit potential. Moreover, assuming e r r o r i n v a l u a t i o n , t h e e r r o r i s h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e w i f e was n o t e n t i t l e d to any of the husband's property acquired after the that the s e p a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t and s e p a r a t i o n . Concerning child support, the wife assets t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d owed back c h i l d s u p p o r t and f a i l i n g t o i n c r e a s e i t r e t r o a c t i v e l y from t h e t i m e o f month. s e p a r a t i o n from $ 7 5 p e r month t o $200 p e r The w i f e had no c o m p l a i n t s a s t o t h e a d e q u a c y o f t h e child support agreement during the eight year separation. Her claim for retroactive increased child support payments for the eight-year period is more than hollow. Furthermore, the trial court considered the wife's contention that the husband failed to make the $75 per month payments pursuant to the written agreement, but found that the evidence did not preponderate in favor of either party on this issue, and therefore denied her claim. The record supports this decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 99 dA Justic We Concur: ChieE 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.
