No. 14257
I N THE SUPREME C O W O THE STATE O I4XCANA
F F
1979
IN RE TI-E MAFUUAGE OF
NANCY E. KUWZ,
Petitioner and Respondent,
-VS-
THOMAS M. K W Z ,
Respondent and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eighth Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
Hon. H. William Coder, J d g e presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Ralph T. Randono, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, Great F a l l s , Mntana
Sdmitted on briefs: March 1 2 , 1979
Decided: Ai i - 19-9
1
,,
Filed :
.-:
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.
c his i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County o f Cascade, i n which
t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d r e s p o n d e n t Nancy Kuntz a d i s s o l u t i o n of
m a r r i a g e and o r d e r e d c e r t a i n c u s t o d y and p r o p e r t y d i s p o s i -
tions.
The t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e l a n d and home, which
w e r e v a l u e d a t $ 5 9 , 8 5 0 , b e s o l d and a f t e r a l l d e b t s c o n n e c t e d
with it paid, t h e proceeds e q u a l l y divided. In addition,
t h e machinery and l i v e s t o c k w e r e o r d e r e d s o l d . The remain-
i n g j o i n t d e b t s o f t h e p a r t i e s were t o b e p a i d from t h e
p r o c e e d s and t h e r e m a i n d e r d i v i d e d e q u a l l y . Each p a r t y was
awarded t h e v e h i c l e t h e y w e r e u s i n g a t t h e t i m e o f s e p a r a t i o n .
P r i o r t o d i s c u s s i n g t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t , w e
n o t e t h a t t h e c o u n s e l f o r a p p e l l a n t h e r e i n was n o t t h e
counsel t h a t t r i e d t h i s matter before t h e D i s t r i c t Court.
T h e r e f o r e , some o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l w e r e m a t t e r s
t h a t , had h e been p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r i a l , would
have been handled d i f f e r e n t l y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , he t a k e s t h e
record a s he f i n d s it.
The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r o u r r e v i e w a r e :
1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n making t h e d i v i s i o n
o f p r o p e r t y between t h e p a r t i e s o r d e r e d i n i t s d e c r e e o f
October 1 7 , 1977?
2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t make t h e r e q u i r e d f i n d i n g s
of f a c t n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t t h e d e c r e e ?
3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t make t h e r e q u i r e d c o n c l u -
s i o n s of l a w n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t t h e d e c r e e ?
4. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n e x c l u d i n g t h e e v i -
d e n c e o f Howard P a r k e r a s t o v a l u e ?
5. id t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n i t s r u l i n g s upon
e x a m i n a t i o n of Bruce A. Nelson ( a ) a s t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of
t e s t i m o n y a s t o o t h e r s a l e s and ( b ) a s t o a c c e p t i n g t h e
o p i n i o n of t h e w i t n e s s ?
F o r t h e p u r p o s e of t h i s o p i n i o n w e d i v i d e t h e i s s u e s
i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s , combining i s s u e s one t h r o u g h t h r e e on
whether o r n o t t h e c o u r t f o l l o w e d t h e s t a t u t e s a s r e q u i r e d
i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p a r t i e s t a s s e t s f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n and
i s s u e s f o u r and f i v e a s t o whether t h e t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g
property valuation w a s properly received.
Appellant takes i s s u e with t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d
not s p e c i f i c a l l y f i n d a c e r t a i n value a s t o property, both
p e r s o n a l and r e a l , and b e more s p e c i f i c i n i t s f i n d i n g s . He
a l l e g e s t h a t s e c t i o n 40-4-202 MCA r e q u i r e s s u c h f i n d i n g s by
t h e c o u r t i n t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e property. Here, t h e c o u r t
found t h a t t h e v a l u e of t h e house and l a n d w a s $59,850 and
t h a t t h e r e w a s a $15,000 mortgage o u t s t a n d i n g . The c o u r t
t h e n o r d e r e d t h e p r o p e r t y s o l d and t h e p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d
equally a f t e r t h e indebtedness w a s paid. While t h e c o u r t
d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y p l a c e a v a l u e on t h e few c a t t l e o r t h e
s m a l l amount of machinery t h a t was on t h e farm, i t d i d
i n s t e a d o r d e r t h a t i t b e s o l d w i t h t h e farm and o r d e r e d
those proceeds divided equally a l s o . I n our opinion t h i s
was a workable method i n d i v i d i n g t h e o n l y a s s e t s of t h e
p a r t i e s a s b o t h p a r t i e s had c o n t r i b u t e d towards t h e i r
preservation. The c o u r t ' s o r d e r i s l o g i c a l and p r a c t i c a l ,
and i n o u r o p i n i o n f o l l o w s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 40-4-
202 MCA and c a s e law. A r e v i e w of t h e c a s e law u p h o l d s t h e
f i n d i n g of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h i s r e g a r d . See I n r e
M a r r i a g e o f C a p r i c e (1978) Mont . , 585 P.2d 641,
35 St.Rep. 1460, and M a r r i a g e of Barron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont .
, 580 P.2d 936, 35 St.Rep. 891.
A p p e l l a n t r e l i e s on s e v e r a l c a s e s o f t h i s C o u r t which
he believes a r e controlling: Robertson v. Robertson (1978),
Mont. , 590 P.2d 1 1 3 , 35 S t . R e p . 1889; I n r e Mar-
r i a g e o f Capener ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 582 P.2d 326, 35
St.Rep. 1026; V i v i a n v . V i v i a n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont . , 583
P.2d 1072, 35 S t - R e p . 1359; I n r e M a r r i a g e o f K r a m e r ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
Mont . , 580 P.2d 439, 35 S t . R e p . 700; and M a r t i n e z
v. Martinez (1978), Mont. I 573 P.2d 667, 35 S t . R e p .
61. These c a s e s a r e n o t a t p o i n t i n t h i s m a t t e r f o r t h e y
e i t h e r had no f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e a s s e t s o f t h e p a r t i e s o r
r e c o r d upon which r e q u i r e d a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f n e t w o r t h t o
s u p p o r t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r cases t o o n e o f t h e
parties.
P u t t i n g a n e t d o l l a r f i g u r e on t h e b o t t o m l i n e would
n o t a f f e c t t h e judgment i n t h i s c a s e f o r t h e s a l e would
e s t a b l i s h what t h e f i g u r e s h o u l d b e . H e r e , what t h e D i s -
t r i c t Court says i n i t s order is: Here a r e t h e a s s e t s , s e l l
them, pay y o u r j o i n t d e b t s , and s p l i t what r e m a i n s . It is
a s i m p l e , p r a c t i c a l and l o g i c a l way f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
t o d i v i d e t h e a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s d i s -
solving t h e i r marriage. The d u t y o f t h e c o u r t w a s t o con-
s i d e r t h e s t a t u t o r y f a c t o r s a n d e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e t h e prop-
erty. W e f i n d t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d so.
I n a d d i t i o n , a p p e l l a n t argues t h a t t h e f a c t s do n o t
support t h e findings. The s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w i n g t h a t c l a i m
i s c l e a r l y set f o r t h i n I n r e Marriage of Jorgensen (1979),
Mont. , 590 P.2d 606, 36 S t - R e p . 233, where w e s a i d
t h a t f i n d i n g s may n o t b e d i s t u r b e d by u s u n l e s s c l e a r l y
e r r o n e o u s ( R u l e 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.). The e v i d e n c e h e r e
supports t h e findings. The r u l e i n Montana f o r o u r r e v i e w
o f p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i n m a r i t a l c a s e s i s whether t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y , w i t h o u t employment o f con-
s c i e n t i o u s judgment, o r exceeded t h e bounds of r e a s o n i n
view o f a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Z e l l v . Zell ( 1 9 7 7 ) ,
Mont. . 570 P.2d 33, 34 St.Rep. 1070. Appellant has
n o t shown a r b i t r a r i n e s s on t h e p a r t of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
t h a t g o e s beyond c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment o r beyond r e a s o n .
W e n e x t c o n s i d e r whether t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d
t h e e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y of Bruce Nelson, a r e a l t o r , c o n c e r n i n g
t h e v a l u e of t h e a c r e a g e and t h e b u i l d i n g s on same, and t h e n
r e s t r i c t e d c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n on t h e s a l e s o f o t h e r p r o p e r t y
i n the area. A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h i s c a s e must be r e v e r s e d
b e c a u s e M r . Nelson was a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y a b o u t t h e v a l u e o f
the real estate. He a l s o c l a i m s h i s a t t o r n e y s h o u l d have
been a l l o w e d t o cross-examine M r . Nelson a b o u t o t h e r s a l e s .
Mr. Nelson w a s a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y a s a n e x p e r t a b o u t
h i s o p i n i o n of t h e r e a l e s t a t e v a l u e . Rule 702, Mont.R.Evid.,
reads:
"If scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge w i l l a s s i s t t h e t r i e r of f a c t t o under-
stand t h e evidence o r determine a f a c t i n i s s u e ,
a w i t n e s s q u a l i f i e d a s a n e x p e r t by knowledge,
s k i l l , e x p e r i e n c e , t r a i n i n g , o r e d u c a t i o n , may
t e s t i f y t h e r e t o i n t h e form of o p i n i o n o r o t h e r -
wise." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
The c o u r t must d e c i d e whether t h e e x p e r t i s q u a l i f i e d .
Rule 104, Mont.R.Evid.
Mr. N e l s o n ' s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a r e found i n t h e r e c o r d :
h e i s a l i c e n s e d r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ; h a s been s o s i n c e 1952;
b e l o n g s t o p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; and h a s made h i s
l i v i n g s i n c e 1952 s e l l i n g r e a l e s t a t e s t a t e - w i d e . He h a s
s o l d numerous farm p r o p e r t i e s , i s f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e v a l u e s
o f p r o p e r t y i n t h e a r e a , and had i n s p e c t e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n
question. The c o u r t a l l o w e d h i s o p i n i o n a s t o t h e v a l u e .
W e f i n d no e r r o r .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d a l l n e c e s s a r y f a c t o r s a n d
made r u l i n g s c o n s i d e r e d e q u i t a b l e u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
W e a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h a t c o u r t .
/
/' 1 Justice
W e concur:
%i , fcJ u s t,i ca w & 4
m e
e e