No. 80-41
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA
F
1980
I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF
EADIE W. SCHULTZ,
P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t ,
HILBERT SCHULTZ ,
Respondent and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T e 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 F e r g u s ,
The H o n o r a b l e LeRoy McKinnon, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
W i l l i a m E . B e r g e r , Lewistown, Montana
F o r Respondent :
Leonard H. McKinney, Lewistown, Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : J u n e 1 9 , 1980
Decided: JU6- 2 5 19&I
Filed: Ill! -.
? 5 WQT?.
M r . 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.
T h i s 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 Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r
t h e County of F e r g u s , d i s s o l v i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , s e t t l i n g
c u s t o d y and c h i l d s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n s and d i v i d i n g t h e m a r i t a l
property. The a p p e a l p r i n c i p a l l y c e n t e r s around t h e d i v i -
s i o n of t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y .
Respondent w i f e i s a t e a c h e r and a coach a t F e r g u s
County High School, where s h e h a s t a u g h t s i n c e t h e f a l l of
1977. A p p e l l a n t husband i s a mechanic and maintenance man
f o r t h e Montana S t a t e Highway Department where he h a s worked
s i n c e J a n u a r y 1973.
The p a r t i e s began t h e i r m a r r i e d l i f e w i t h o u t a s s e t s .
E x c e p t f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d of t i m e when s h e was f i n i s h i n g h e r
c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n a t E a s t e r n Montana C o l l e g e , w i f e h a s
worked w i t h husband i n h i s v a r i o u s o c c u p a t i o n s . Early i n
t h e marriage t h e couple operated a s e r v i c e s t a t i o n i n W i s -
c o n s i n , and w i f e worked w i t h husband i n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f
this station. A f t e r coming t o Montana, husband worked a s a
mechanic i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, w h i l e w i f e f i n i s h e d h e r
education. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e y moved t o Lewistown, Montana,
where w i f e became a t e a c h e r and a coach and husband con-
t i n u e d t o work i n t h e f i e l d of mechanics, p r i o r t o g o i n g t o
work f o r t h e Highway Department. The p a r t i e s purchased a
home when t h e y moved t o Lewistown f o r which a downpayment
was made from monies husband had o b t a i n e d from h i s f a m i l y .
The p a r t i e s s o l d t h e house i n Lewistown and used t h e
p r o c e e d s of t h e s a l e t o p u r c h a s e t e n and one-half acres
o u t s i d e of town where t h e y e r e c t e d a Capp home. The Capp
home c o s t $25,000 and was p u t i n p l a c e o v e r a basement t h a t
had been dug and poured. The house w a s a s h e l l of a house
when i t was p u t up i n 1975. Since t h a t time t h e family has
c o n t i n u a l l y worked on t h e house t o f i n i s h i t and make i t
totally livable. T h i s h a s t a k e n some t h r e e y e a r s of work by
husband, w i f e and t h e i r two boys, and t h e f a m i l y ' s income
h a s gone i n t o t h e p u r c h a s e of m a t e r i a l s , e t c . , t o complete
t h i s house. The p r o p e r t y and house a r e t h e p r i n c i p a l a s s e t s
of t h e f a m i l y and a r e t h e c e n t e r of t h i s d i s p u t e b e c a u s e t h e
t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r and judgment d i r e c t e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t
wife g e t t h i s property.
Respondent t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y
and p u t t h e v a l u e a t $80,000. Husband v a l u e d t h e p r o p e r t y
a t between $85,000 and $100,000, and a s e p a r a t e a p p r a i s a l
w a s made by a n FHA a p p r a i s e r who s e t a v a l u e of $85,000. In
a d d i t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s o w n e d a l o t i n Wisconsin on a l a k e
which was r e c r e a t i o n a l p r o p e r t y . The v a l u e of t h i s p r o p e r t y
i s e s t i m a t e d between $10,000 and $15,000. There was a t t h e
t i m e of t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n a $24,508 mortgage a g a i n s t
t h e house and t e n a c r e s . The r e s t of t h e p r o p e r t y l i s t e d
and d i v i d e d by t h e c o u r t was p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n c l u d i n g
a u t o m o b i l e s , h o r s e s , farm equipment, and t o o l s , and t h o s e
t h i n g s t h a t a r e n e c e s s a r y around t h e house, i n c l u d i n g a
c o l l e c t i o n of guns e s t i m a t e d a t a v a l u e of a p p r o x i m a t e l y
$2,500.
According t o t h e n e t d i s t r i b u t i o n , r e s p o n d e n t w i f e
r e c e i v e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 3 t o 79 p e r c e n t of t h e n e t w o r t h of
t h e c o u p l e , and husband r e c e i v e d 21 t o 27 p e r c e n t . Appel-
l a n t husband a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n i s t o t a l l y
inequitable.
The i s s u e b e f o r e u s i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t complied
w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, i n making t h e
d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o p e r t y of t h e m a r r i a g e i n a n e q u i t a b l e
manner, o r whether t h e c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n making
t h e property division.
T h i s C o u r t h a s , s i n c e 1975 when t h e M a r r i a g e and Divorce
A c t was p a s s e d , c o n s i d e r e d many c a s e s w i t h r e g a r d t o p r o p e r
p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i n d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e c a s e s . W have
e
adopted c e r t a i n g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n a s
mandated under s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA.
S e v e r a l c r i t e r i a s t a n d o u t a s mandates, f i r s t of which
i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t make f i n d i n g s of f a c t from which
t h e r e c a n be e s t a b l i s h e d a n e t w o r t h of t h e p a r t i e s . See I n
re M a r r i a g e of S c h u l t z ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. -, 597 P.2d
1174, 36 St.Rep. 1330; H e r r i n g v. H e r r i n g ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont.
, 602 P.2d 1006, 36 St.Rep. 2052; V i v i a n v . V i v i a n
(1978) ,
- Mont. - 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1359; Downs
v. Downs ( 1 9 7 9 ) , ,
- Mont. - 592 P.2d 938, 36 St.Rep.
577; I n re M a r r i a g e of Capener ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 437, 582
P.2d 326, 35 St.Rep. 1026; Kruse v . Kruse ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont.
,
- 586 P.2d 294, 35 St.Rep. 1502; I n r e M a r r i a g e of Brown
(1978) - Mont. , 587 P.2d 361, 35 St.Rep. 1733;
Robertson v . Robertson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , - Mont. ,
- 590 P.2d 113,
35 S t - R e p . 1889; G r e n f e l l v . G r e n f e l l (1979) I - Mont.
, 596 P.2d 205, 36 St.Rep. 1100; I n r e ~ a r r i a g e f
o
Herron ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. -, 608 P.2d 97, 37 St.Rep. 387.
The above c a s e s g e n e r a l l y h o l d t h a t t h e r e must be
c o m p l e t e f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e assets and l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e
p a r t i e s and t h e i r v a l u e s f o r e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a n e t worth.
T h i s C o u r t h a s a l l o w e d a f a i l u r e t o f i n d a n e t worth t o
s t a n d o n l y where t h e r e h a s been a 50/50 s p l i t of t h e p r o p e r t y .
See B a i l e y v . B a i l e y ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. 603 P.2d 259,
36 St.Rep. 2162; Reese v. Reese ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. , 604
P.2d 326, 36 St.Rep. 2389; Kuntz v. Kuntz ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont.
, 593 P.2d 4 1 , 36 St.Rep. 662.
H e r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o make f i n d i n g s e s t a b -
l i s h i n g t h e n e t w o r t h of t h e p a r t i e s p r i o r t o d i v i d i n g t h e
m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and d i v i d i n g i t i n a n i n e q u i t a b l e manner
w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s and i n h e r i -
tance necessitates a reversal. W e remand w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o
a s c e r t a i n t h e n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s i n a r r i v i n g a t a
p r o p e r d i v i s i o n of t h e same.
W concur:
e
ief Justike