ZELL v ZELL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 80-66 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A O T N 1980 ZELL, RAYMOND W. P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsV I C T O R I A M. ZELL, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e N i n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f T o o l e , The H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t M. H o l t e r , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: C o n n e r , B a i z & O l s e n , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana For Respondent : Aronow, A n d e r s o n , B e a t t y & L e e , S h e l b y , 3lontana Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided : May 1 4 , 1980 JUL 2 - 198D 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 c a s e p r e s e n t s a r e g r e t t a b l e s t a t e o f a f f a i r s wherein t h e p a r t i e s t o a divorce are s t i l l d i s p u t i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y o r d e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n i t s 1975 d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n and a f f i r m e d by t h i s Court. Z e l l v. Z e l l ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 3 3 . The f a c t s of t h i s c a s e a r e a d e q u a t e l y s e t o u t i n o u r p r i o r opinion. V i c t o r i a M. B r i e f l y , t h e m a r r i a g e of Raymond Z e l l and Z e l l was d i s s o l v e d i n a n October 20, 1975 d e c r e e which d i s t r i b u t e d e q u a l l y t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y of t h e p a r t i e s . F o r p u r p o s e s of t h i s a p p e a l , i t i s n e c e s s a r y o n l y t o p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e w i f e , a p p e l l a n t h e r e , was t o r e c e i v e t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e , and t h e husband was t o r e c e i v e a r e n t a l p r o p e r t y and a l l farm machinery. The farmland owned by t h e p a r t i e s w a s o r d e r e d t o b e p a r t i t i o n e d e q u a l l y between them, and c e r t a i n l e a s e s w e r e a l s o divided. The p r o c e e d s from t h e 1975 c r o p s w e r e t o b e d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between t h e p a r t i e s a f t e r t h e husband was reimbursed f o r t h e c o s t s of p r o d u c t i o n and a f t e r a l l e x i s t i n g encumbrances a g a i n s t t h e farm machine r y and t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e were d i s c h a r g e d . The a f o r e - mentioned d i s t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y was c h a l l e n g e d by t h e w i f e on a p p e a l and was a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t i n o u r p r i o r opinion. The c o n t r o v e r s y now b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t a r i s e s o u t of t h e p a r t i e s ' r e f u s a l t o c a r r y o u t the property d i v i s i o n ordered by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . The w i f e n e g l e c t e d t o convey h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e n t a l p r o p e r t y t o t h e husband, a s o r d e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c r e e , and s h e c o n t i n u e d t o c o l l e c t r e n t s on t h a t p r o p e r t y u n t i l J a n u a r y 1979. The husband f a i l e d t o a p p l y t h e n e t p r o c e e d s from t h e 1975 c r o p s t o d i s c h a r g e a l l encumbrances a g a i n s t t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e , which was awarded t o t h e w i f e . Both p a r t i e s f a i l e d t o e f f e c t a n e q u a l p a r t i t i o n of t h e farmland u n t i l November 1978, and t h e husband, who c o n t i n u e d t o farm t h e p r o p e r t y a f t e r t h e October 20, 1975 d i v o r c e , made no a c c o u n t i n g t o t h e w i f e of h i s income d e r i v e d from t h e p r o p e r t y u n t i l 1979, a l t h o u g h h e d e l i v e r e d a s h a r e of t h e c r o p t o h e r e a c h y e a r . On motion of t h e w i f e , a h e a r i n g r e l a t i n g t o t h e p e r formance of t h e t e r m s of t h e October 20, 1975 d e c r e e w a s h e l d on F e b r u a r y 22, 1979, b e f o r e t h e same d i s t r i c t judge who had p r e s i d e d a t t h e o r i g i n a l d i s s o l u t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . A f t e r t h e h e a r i n g t h e judge d i r e c t e d e a c h p a r t y t o f i l e a n a c c o u n t i n g o f income and e x p e n s e s f o r t h e y e a r s 1975 t h r o u g h 1978 t o a s s i s t i n implementing t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e . Following a second h e a r i n g on May 30, 1979, t h e judge a p p o i n t e d a n a c c o u n t a n t a s a s p e c i a l m a s t e r t o make a comp l e t e r e p o r t of t h e income and e x p e n s e s of b o t h husband and wife f o r the years i n question. A f t e r t h e s p e c i a l master f i l e d h i s r e p o r t w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on August 2 1 , 1979, t h e p a r t i e s made e x c e p t i o n s and o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e s p e c i a l master's r e p o r t . A h e a r i n g w a s h e l d on September 27, 1979, d u r i n g which b o t h p a r t i e s examined t h e s p e c i a l master and s u b m i t t e d f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e and arguments. On November 1 5 , 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s s u p p l e m e n t a l f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law, and judgment, o r d e r i n g husband t o pay w i f e t h e sum of $11,912.69 w i t h i n t e r e s t a t t h e r a t e o f 6 p e r c e n t p e r annum from J u l y 1, 1976. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a f u r t h e r o r d e r re- linquishing jurisdiction. Wife f i l e d a motion r e q u e s t i n g a new p r e s i d i n g judge and a motion f o r a new t r i a l and t o amend and a l t e r t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and judgment r e l a t i n g t o p r o p e r t y m a t t e r s , which motion was d e n i e d by t h e new p r e s i d i n g judge f o l l o w i n g a hearing. She now b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l . The ~ i s t r i c C o u r t s t a t e d i n i t s s u p p l e m e n t a l f i n d i n g s t of f a c t : "2. The p r i n c i p a l d i s p u t e between t h e p a r t i e s r e l a t e s t o t h e income from t h e farm l a n d s owned by t h e p a r t i e s and from l e a s e d l a n d s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d s t a r t i n g w i t h t h e y e a r 1975 and e n d i n g w i t h t h e y e a r 1978. The October 20, 1975, judgment p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e 1975 c r o p s grown on t h e s e l a n d s w e r e t o b e s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s u s e d , f i r s t , t o pay c o s t s of p r o d u c t i o n ; second, t o d i s c h a r g e l i e n s and encumbrances e x i s t i n g a g a i n s t t h e r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , and, t h i r d , any b a l a n c e t o b e d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between t h e p a r ties. From t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e t h r o u g h t h e y e a r 1978, p l a i n t i f f c o n t i n u e d t o farm a l l of t h e deeded and l e a s e d l a n d . H e d e l i v e r e d o v e r t o d e f e n d a n t a s h a r e of t h e c r o p e a c h y e a r , b u t made no a c c o u n t i n g t o h e r of income and e x p e n s e s u n t i l 1979. The 1975 income w a s n o t a p p l i e d when r e c e i v e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e d i r e c t i v e s of t h e judgment. During t h e p e r i o d from October 20, 1975, t o September 2 1 , 1977, when t h e Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n was handed down, i t a p p e a r s t h a t no a c t i o n was t a k e n by e i t h e r p a r t y t o c a r r y o u t t h e t e r m s of t h e d e c r e e . T h e r e a f t e r , much of t h e d e l a y i n h a v i n g a n a c c o u n t i n g and a r r i v i n g a t a s e t t l e m e n t was due t o d e f e n d a n t ' s change of a t t o r n e y s and h e r i n a b i l i t y t o u n d e r s t a n d o r a g r e e t o t h e t e r m s o f t h e judgment. "6. D e f e n d a n t ' s e x c e p t i o n No. 6 t o M a s t e r ' s rep o r t a s k s t h a t p l a i n t i f f be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i n t e r e s t t h a t h a s accumulated on t h e encumbrance e x i s t i n g a g a i n s t t h e p r o p e r t y a t 800 F i r s t S t r e e t S o u t h s i n c e h e f a i l e d t o make a t i m e l y f u l l acc o u n t i n g and t h a t h e b e o r d e r e d t o d i s c h a r g e t h i s encumbrance a s p r o v i d e d by t h e October 20, 1975, judgment. The judgment p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e encumbrance e x i s t i n g a s of May 1 9 , 1975, be d i s c h a r g e d from p r o c e e d s of 1975 c r o p income b e f o r e any p a r t of t h e income was d i v i d e d between t ? i e The r e p o r t shows t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y i n parties. q u e s t i o n was encumbered t o t h e amount of $16,065.10 on May 1 9 , 1975. The r e p o r t f u r t h e r shows t h a t t h e n e t 1975 income from t h e farm l a n d s , a f t e r r e i m b u r s i n g p l a i n t i f f f o r c o s t s of p r o d u c t i o n , was $64,910.48. Encumbrances t o be d e d u c t e d t o t a l e d $21,355.68, which i n c l u d e d t h e $16,065.10 and $5,290.58 owing on farm machinery. This l e f t $43,554.80 t o b e d i v i d e d between t h e p a r t i e s a t I t a p p e a r s f u r t h e r from t h e r e $21,777.40 each. p o r t t h a t p l a i n t i f f d i d not apply t h e r e c e i p t s from t h e 1975 c r o p i n t h a t f a s h i o n . H e d i d n o t pay o f f t h e encumbrance on t h e p r o p e r t y a t 800 F i r s t S t r e e t S o u t h . I n s t e a d , he d e l i v e r e d t o d e f e n d a n t 1975 g r a i n o f a v a l u e of $17,858.19, a Desum s u f f i c i e n t t o pay o f f t h e encumbrance. f e n d a n t d i d n o t u s e t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e 1975 g r a i n sale f o r t h a t purpose, nor has she a p p l i e d any of t h e payments r e c e i v e d from p l a i n t i f f i n s u b s e q u e n t y e a r s f o r t h a t p u r p o s e , s o t h i s enPlaincumbrance s t i l l h a s n o t been s a t i s f i e d . t i f f d i d n o t d e l i v e r t o d e f e n d a n t any a d d i t i o n a l p a r t of t h e 1975 c r o p . I n e f f e c t , whatever b a l a n c e i s found by t h e C o u r t i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g t o be owing t o d e f e n d a n t i s a c c o u n t a b l e t o t h e f a i l u r e of p l a i n t i f f t o a p p l y t h e 1975 s a l e s p r o c e e d s a s r e q u i r e d by t h e judgment. Plaintiff s h o u l d be c h a r g e a b l e f o r i n t e r e s t on t h a t b a l a n c e a t t h e r a t e o f 6% p e r annwn from J u l y 1, 1976, t h e approximate d a t e on which t h e f i n a l s a l e of 1975 g r a i n s h o u l d have been made." These f i n d i n g s a r e n o t s e r i o u s l y i n d i s p u t e . Instead, w i f e p r e s e n t s arguments amounting t o a c l a i m t h a t 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 . She c o n t e n d s (1) t h a t husband s h o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t on t h e r e s i d e n c e awarded t o w i f e ; ( 2 ) t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by a l l o w i n g husband t o c h a r g e d e p r e c i a t i o n of farm machinery a g a i n s t h i s n e t income; and ( 3 ) t h a t s h e was n o t g i v e n a d e q u a t e a c c e s s t o h u s b a n d ' s income and expense r e c o r d s , which were s u b m i t t e d t o t h e s p e c i a l master and t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . W e f i n d t h e s e arguments t o be w i t h o u t m e r i t . Wife a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e husband f a i l e d t o d i s c h a r g e a l l encumbrances a g a i n s t t h e r e s i d e n c e awarded t o h e r a s he was r e q u i r e d t o d o under t h e October 20, 1975 d e c r e e , h e s h o u l d have been h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t r a t h e r t h a n merely 6 p e r c e n t p e r annum on t h e b a l a n c e found owing t o t h e w i f e . T h i s argument m i g h t have some f o r c e i f t h e w i f e had come t o t h e c o u r t w i t h c l e a n hands, b u t s h e d i d not. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t much of t h e d e l a y i n c a r r y i n g o u t i t s o r i g i n a l d e c r e e was due t o t h e w i f e ' s actions o r inactions. While t h e husband was a t f a u l t f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o d i s c h a r g e t h e encumbrances a g a i n s t t h e w i f e ' s r e s i d e n c e o u t o f t h e p r o c e e d s of t h e 1975 c r o p s , t h e w i f e a l s o d i s r e g a r d e d t h e d e c r e e by f a i l i n g t o convey t h e r e n t a l p r o p e r t y t o husband as a l l o c a t e d by t h e d e c r e e and by c o l l e c t i n g r e n t s from t h e p r e m i s e s . Thus, we are s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n reaching an equitable solution. W e s t a t e d i n our previous opinion: " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t has f a r reaching d i s c r e t i o n i n resolving 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 b e a l t e r e d u n l e s s a c l e a r a b u s e of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i s shown The c r i t e r i a 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 i s : 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 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 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 c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " Z e l l v. Z e l l , s u p r a , 570 P.2d a t 35. ... Rather than having a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y , t h e District C o u r t must be commended f o r employing n o t o n l y i t s c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment b u t a l s o t h e p a t i e n c e of J o b i n a t t e m p t i n g t o p r o t e c t t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e f a c t t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s must s h a r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r r e f u s i n g t o c a r r y o u t t h e t e r m s of t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e i s s u e d n e a r l y five years earlier. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d w i f e s e v e r a l h e a r i n g s and a p p o i n t e d a n a c c o u n t a n t as a s p e c i a l master t o d e t e r m i n e e a c h p a r t y ' s income and e x p e n s e s f o r t h e y e a r s i n q u e s t i o n , a n appointment which would have been u n n e c e s s a r y b u t f o r t h e i n t r a n s i g e n c e of b o t h p a r t i e s i n complying w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l decree. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f e l t , and we a g r e e , t h a t t h e r e h a s been a n u n j u s t i f i a b l e d e l a y i n complying w i t h i t s decree. Should t h e r e b e any f u r t h e r d e l a y , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s , of c o u r s e , empowered t o u t i l i z e i t s contempt powers. There being no abuse of discretion, the judgment is a £firmed. We concur: %&a*&& 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.