MARRIAGE OF STRATFORD

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

81-47 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1981 I N R THE F4ARRIAGE O E F MARY IAXON STRATFORD, P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t , J O H N HENRY STRATFORD, Respondent and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: District Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, I n and f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , The I I o n o r a b l e D i a n e G. B a r z , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Berger, S i n c l a i r & N e l s o n , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Davidson, V e e d e r , Raugh, B r o e d e r & P o p p l e r , B i l l i n g s , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: WL o 1981 1 A p r i l 1 5 , 1981 J u l y 1 0 , 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . Mary S t r a t f o r d p e t i t i o n e d f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of h e r m a r r i a g e t o John S t r a t f o r d on A p r i l 6, 1979, i n t h e 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 of Yellowstone. 1 0 , 1980. An e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g w a s h e l d on November On December 30, 1980, t h e d i s t r i c t judge i s s u e d her f i n a l decree. John S t r a t f o r d a p p e a l s from t h a t d e c r e e . John and Mary S t r a t f o r d were m a r r i e d i n B i l l i n g s i n 1947. A t t h e t i m e of t h e m a r r i a g e , Mary was a s c h o o l t e a c h e r . She c o n t i n u e d t o t e a c h u n t i l 1951, when t h e f i r s t of t h e c o u p l e ' s t h r e e s o n s was born and s h e assumed t h e f u l l t i m e r o l e of homemaker. John farmed from s p r i n g t o f a l l on a 320-acre p a r c e l l o c a t e d 2 0 m i l e s s o u t h of B i l l i n g s . John had made t h e downpayment on t h e farm i n 1945, and t h e b a l a n c e was p a i d d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . John o b t a i n e d employment i n B i l l i n g s , where t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e d , d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r s . All t h r e e homes which t h e f a m i l y owned d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e were p u r c h a s e d w i t h t h e j o i n t monies of John and Mary. The farm grew i n s i z e d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e and c u r r e n t l y c o m p r i s e s 1,848 a c r e s , 1 , 1 3 8 of which a r e c u l t i v a t e d . The a c r e a g e was accumulated t h r o u g h t h e e f f o r t s of b o t h John and Mary. In 1975, S t r a t f o r d Farms, I n c o r p o r a t e d , was formed a s p a r t of an e s t a t e plan. E i g h t y a c r e s of t h e o r i g i n a l 320 w e r e i n a d v e r t e n t l y o m i t t e d from t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . d e n t of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n and farm manager. John i s p r e s i H e receives a s a l a r y of $900 a month and a home on t h e farm a s payment f o r h i s services. Mary i s s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r of t h e c o r p o r - a t i o n and i s p a i d $1,000 p e r month f o r h e r bookkeeping f o r the corporation. She a l s o works p a r t - t i m e a t Sears ~ o e b u c k . The s h a r e s i n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n a r e c u r r e n t l y d i s t r i b u t e d a s follows: John, 13,762; Mary, 13,761; e a c h of t h e t h r e e s o n s , 6,830. One of t h e s o n s r e s i d e s on t h e farm and works with h i s father. The p a r t i e s a c q u i r e d o t h e r a s s e t s d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e . The n e t v a l u e of a l l a s s e t s w a s s t i p u l a t e d t o a t t h e t i m e of dissolution. The major a s s e t i s I n d u s t r i a l Land and R e a l t y , a j o i n t v e n t u r e between John S t r a t f o r d and h i s b r o t h e r . Mary's mother c o n t r i b u t e d f u n d s which a i d e d John i n o b t a i n i n g h i s i n t e r e s t i n I n d u s t r i a l Land. Mary r e c e i v e s one h a l f o f J o h n ' s monthly d i s t r i b u t i o n from t h e v e n t u r e , o r $750. Mary r e c e i v e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $28,500 d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e by g i f t and d e v i s e from h e r mother. She h a s i n v e s t e d i n s t o c k s . John i s a p a r t n e r i n a f o u r - p e r s o n p a r t n e r s h i p , C . A . J . Y . The p a r t i e s a l s o have bank a c c o u n t s , IRA a c c o u n t s and p e r s o n a l property . The d i s t r i c t judge made a p r o p e r t y d i s p o s i t i o n i n l i e u of maintenance. Each p a r t y r e c e i v e d one h a l f of a l l d i s t r i b u - t i o n s of e a r n i n g s from I n d u s t r i a l Land and R e a l t y . I n the e v e n t t h e husband l i q u i d a t e s h i s i n t e r e s t , t h e w i f e i s t o r e c e i v e one h a l f of h i s n e t p r o c e e d s . The w i f e r e c e i v e d t h e f a m i l y home i n B i l l i n g s , a s w e l l a s t h e household f u r n i s h i n g s and a p p l i a n c e s . The husband was awarded t h e 80-acre t r a c t which was n o t i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o S t r a t f o r d Farms and t h e f u r n i s h i n g s and a p p l i a n c e s l o c a t e d a t t h e farmhouse. w i f e k e p t t h e i n h e r i t a n c e from h e r mother. The The p a r t i e s k e p t t h e i r own bank a c c o u n t s , IRA a c c o u n t s , l i f e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s and v e h i c l e s . C.A.J.Y. The husband r e t a i n e d h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e partnership. The p a r t i e s r e t a i n e d t h e i r p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d s h a r e s i n S t r a t f o r d Farms. The p a r t i e s w e r e made r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own l i a b i l i t i e s , a s w e l l a s f o r t h e i r own c o s t s and f e e s i n t h e d i s s o l u t i o n a c t i o n . A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s numerous i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g whether t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t judge and whether t h e judge i g n o r e d c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e i n a p p l y i n g t h e f a c t o r s t o be considered i n a r r i v i n g a t an e q u i t a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n of p r o p e r t y under s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. W e have reviewed t h e e v i d e n c e and examined 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 D i s t r i c t Court. 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 law p r o v i d e a f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e c o u r t ' s judgment. Barron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 161, 580 P.2d 936. M a r r i a g e of This foundation need n o t c o n s i s t of a m u l t i t u d e of e v i d e n t i a r y f a c t s , b u t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t must s e t f o r t h a r e c o r d a t i o n of t h e e s s e n t i a l and d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t s upon which t h e c o u r t r e s t e d i t s c o n c l u s i o n s of law and w i t h o u t which t h e judgment would lack support. Jones v. Jones (1980), P.2d 850, 37 St.Rep. 1973. - Mont. , 620 A d i s t r i c t c o u r t has far-reaching d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s o l v i n g 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 be 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 is: Did t h e 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 . Zell v . Zell ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d 33. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t made f i n d i n g s on t h o s e e l e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, which a r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s c a s e , and t h e f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . W f i n d no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . e Appellant a l s o r a i s e s several i s s u e s i n r e l a t i o n t o the ownership of t h e s t o c k i n S t r a t f o r d Farms, I n c o r p o r a t e d . These i s s u e s c a n be d i s p o s e d of by c o n f r o n t i n g t h e c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n : Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by f a i l i n g t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e w i f e ' s s t o c k i n t h e farm c o r p o r a t i o n t o t h e husband? The d i s t r i c t judge c o n s i d e r e d t h e a l t e r n a t i v e d i s p o s i t i o n s of S t r a t f o r d Farms, I n c o r p o r a t e d , t h a t w e r e a v a i l a b l e t o her. She h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y of two o f t h e t h r e e s o n s who own s t o c k i n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , b o t h of whom s a i d t h a t t h e y would be a b l e t o v o t e t h e i r s t o c k w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o p e r s o n a l d i s p u t e s between t h e i r p a r e n t s . The judge found t h a t t h e r e would b e s e r i o u s t a x consequences i f s h e w e r e t o o r d e r l i q u i d a t i o n of t h e farm c o r p o r a t i o n . This finding w a s s u p p o r t e d by t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e a c c o u n t a n t who a p p e a r e d a t t h e hearing. The judge concluded i t t o be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e e s t a t e t h a t t h e ownership of S t r a t f o r d Farms n o t be t r a n s f e r r e d o r s o l d . There was ample e v i d e n c e t o support t h e D i s t r i c t Court order continuing the e s t a b l i s h e d ownership and o p e r a t i o n of t h e farm c o r p o r a t i o n . The t a x consequences of a t r a n s f e r o r s a l e w e r e g i v e n due c o n s i d e r a W hold 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 e tion. d i s c r e t i o n by n o t d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e w i f e ' s c o r p o r a t e s t o c k t o t h e husband. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t asserts t h a t i t was e r r o r f o r t h e d i s t r i c t judge t o s u s t a i n o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e w i f e . A p p e l l a n t was s e e k i n g t o minimize t h e v a l u e of h i s w i f e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the marriage. To t h i s e n d , t h e w i f e was q u e s t i o n e d a s t o whether t h e l i v i n g q u a r t e r s on t h e farm c o u l d have been upgraded t o e q u a l t h o s e i n town, whether s h e c h a r a c t e r i z e d h e r s e l f a s a " c i t y g i r l " , and whether s h e s p e n t more time p l a y i n g b r i d g e t h a n k e e p i n g t h e c o r p o r a t e books. The i n f o r m a t i o n which c o u n s e l f o r a p p e l l a n t was a t t e m p t i n g t o s o l i c i t was i r r e l e v a n t . The d i s t r i c t judge did not e r r i n sustaining objections to these inquiries. W e have found t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t committed no We concur: ph--Q4$f@~d& 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.