Perkins v. Perkins

Montana Supreme Court

Perkins v. Perkins

540 P.2d 957, 168 Mont. 78, 1975 Mont. LEXIS 461

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 24, 1975

Docket12975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 540 P.2d 957 (Perkins v. Perkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perkins v. Perkins, 540 P.2d 957, 168 Mont. 78, 1975 Mont. LEXIS 461 (Mo. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE HASWELL

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In a divorce action in a district court, Deer Lodge County, Hon. Robert J. Boyd sitting without a jury, judgment was en *79 tered 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. Judgment was entered in conformity therewith as follows: (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 were 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 individually with an eye to its unique circumstances. Cook v. Cook, supra. 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.

*80 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON and MR. JUSTICES CASTLES, JOHN C. HARRISON and DALY concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MR. JUSTICE HASWELL

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In a divorce action in a district court, Deer Lodge County, Hon. Robert J. Boyd sitting without a jury, judgment was en *79 tered 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. Judgment was entered in conformity therewith as follows: (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 were 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 individually with an eye to its unique circumstances. Cook v. Cook, supra. 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.

*80 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON and MR. JUSTICES CASTLES, JOHN C. HARRISON and DALY concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 P.2d 957, 168 Mont. 78, 1975 Mont. LEXIS 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-perkins-mont-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack