I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 81-50
I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
KAY J O Y PETERSON,
P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t ,
VS.
RAYMOND P. PETERSON,
R e s p o n d e n t and R e s p o n d e n t .
O R D E R
PER CURIAM:
I T I S HEREBY ORDERED t h a t t h e o p i n i o n o f t h i s C o u r t d a t e d
October 22, 1981, be c o r r e c t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner. The
f o u r t h p a r a g r a p h o n p a g e 2 w h i c h b e g i n s " B o t h r a n c h e s were
s u b s t a n t i a l l y encumbered. . ." s h o u l d read as f o l l o w s :
" B o t h r a n c h e s were s u b s t a n t i a l l y e n c u m b e r e d .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d t h e home r a n c h to h a v e
a n e g a t i v e v a l u e of $74,625 a f t e r d e d u c t i n g a l l
l i a b i l i t i e s from its f a i r market v a l u e of
$402,500. The c o u r t f o u n d t h e f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e
o f t h e A l b e e Ranch t o be $ 2 , 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 a n d t o t a l
l i a b i l i t i e s to be $ 1 , 3 2 4 , 7 6 1 . 3 0 . The c o u r t
awarded t h e a p p e l l a n t t h e s t o c k sale p r o c e e d s ,
f u r n i t u r e from t h e home r a n c h , a h o r s e , h o r s e
t r a i l e r , j e w e l r y and o n e - h a l f o f $ 9 0 0 0 i n l e a s e
f e e s owed t o t h e P e t e r s o n s f o r g r a z i n g r i g h t s o n
t h e home r a n c h . The r e s p o n d e n t was a w a r d e d t h e
home r a n c h , c a t t l e v a l u e d a t $ 5 2 , 9 2 4 , t h r e e
h o r s e s , farm machinery, p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y ,
$ 4 5 0 0 i n lease f e e s and $ 9 0 0 0 f r o m t h e sale o f
a c a t e r p i l l a r tractor."
DATED t h i s p d a y o f November, 1 9 8 1 .
Justices
No. 81-50
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A
O R F F OTN
1981
I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF
KAY J O Y PETERSON,
P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t ,
and
RAYMOND P. PETERSON,
Respondent and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f 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 c o u n t y o f Beaverhead.
Honorable Frank B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
D a t s o p o u l o s , ~ M a c D o n a l d & L i n d , M i s s o u l a , Montana
F o r Respondent:
C o r e t t e , Smith, Pohlman & A l l e n , B u t t e , Montana
Submitted on b r i e f s : J u l y 30, 1981
Decided: at
Filed:
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
Kay Peterson appeals from a judgment of the Fifth
Judicial District, Beaverhead County, apportioning marital
assets, denying child support and maintenance, and awarding
custody of one child to the respondent.
Kay and Raymond Peterson were married September 23,
1960. They have three children: two sons, Guy, age 18, and
Jade, age 17, and one daughter, Andrea, age 15.
The appellant and respondent accumulated substantial
property during their marriage. They owned a 1400-acre
cattle ranch where they resided, livestock, farm machinery
and other personal property. Prior to September 1980,
appellant and respondent each owned ninety shares which
represented fifty percent of an incorporated 12,000-acre
ranch near Wisdom, Montana, called the Albee Ranch. The
remaining fifty percent was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Tom Ford.
The appellant sold her ninety shares to the Fords for
$230,000 before trial. The respondent was not involved in
the sale and retained his ninety shares at the time of
trial .
Both ranches were substantially encumbered. The
District Court found the home ranch to have a negative value
of $74,625 after deducting all liabilities from its fair
market value of $402,500. The court found the fair market
value of the Albee Ranch to be $2,003,000 and total
liabilities to be $1,324,761.30. The court equally divided
the stock sale proceeds between the parties and ordered the
shares owned by the respondent sold and the proceeds equally
divided within thirty days or individually reissued in equal
amounts to the parties. The home ranch, three horses and
farm machinery were awarded to the respondent. Petitioner
was awarded furniture, jewelry, a horse and a horse trailer.
The remainder of the marital estate, which included cattle
valued at $52,924, was equally apportioned.
The appellant raises the following issues in this
appeal:
1. Whether the District Court accurately determined
the net worth of the marital estate.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion
in apportioning the marital estate.
3. Whether the District Court erred in denying child
support and maintenance.
4. Whether the District Court erred in granting the
respondent custody of the minor daughter.
We have carefully reviewed the record before us and
find the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for
complete findings regarding the true net worth of the
marital estate and the awarding of child custody. Further,
it is obvious that the District Court failed to adequately
follow the applicable statutory mandates and case law in
apportioning the marital estate and in denying child support
and maintenance.
Net Worth of the Marital Estate
The appellant contends the District Court abused its
discretion first by omitting marital assets proven at trial
and second in its determination of the value of assets
included by the court.
The first omission complained of arises from the sale
by respondent of 160 cattle to one Andrew Leep in December
1979. The r e s p o n d e n t t e s t i f i e d t h e t o t a l s a l e s p r i c e was
$ 7 6 , 0 0 0 which was a p p l i e d t o a p r o m i s s o r y n o t e t o S t a t e Bank
and Trust Company of Dillon, Montana, the holder of the
security interest in the cattle.
The a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h e s a l e s p r i c e was a c t u a l l y
$ 9 6 , 0 0 0 p a i d t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t i n two c h e c k s ; a downpayment
o f $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 made p a y a b l e t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d a
second check of $ 7 6 , 0 0 0 made j o i n t l y p a y a b l e t o r e s p o n d e n t
and the bank. In support of her allegation appellant
o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y of a Department of L i v e s t o c k i n v e s t i g a t o r ,
the canceled $20,000 check, copies of the bank's deposit
r e c o r d s and l o a n n o t a t i o n s , and t h e o f f i c i a l f i n d i n g s o f t h e
Montana Board of L i v e s t o c k i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o L e e p ' s
livestock d e a l e r ' s license. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e f u s e d t o
admit the Board of Livestock findings. Rule 803(8),
Mont . R . E v i d .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t make a f i n d i n g r e g a r d i n g
this matter. Appellant presented substantial credible
evidence i n support of her contention that the respondent
received $96,000 for the cattle and may h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o
conceal the $20,000 payment. Respondent first testified
t h a t he c o u l d n o t remember t h e t o t a l s a l e s p r i c e b u t l a t e r
testified if he had received t h e second check f o r $20,000
t h a t he d e p o s i t e d t h a t check w i t h t h e bank. Respondent d i d
not present any documentary evidence in support of his
contention. Upon t h e e v i d e n c e f o u n d i n t h i s r e c o r d , we h o l d
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 ignoring this
contested issue in its findings. On remand the District
C o u r t m u s t make a f i n d i n g r e g a r d i n g t h i s c l a i m .
Appellant n e x t c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by
failing to include prepaid grazing fees in the marital
estate. The respondent paid a Washington landowner $18,000
in anticipation of pasturing one hundred cattle; however,
only forty-six cattle were actually pastured. The testimony
of respondent supports the appellant's contention regarding
the unused prepaid fees. Respondent testified the lessor
would rebate approximately $9,000 on demand. No contrary
evidence appears in the record. The District Court did not
include this asset in its findings and conclusions. This
was error. On remand the District Court must add the
prepaid fees to the valuation of the estate.
The final omissions claimed as error are a $6,000
payment received by respondent for gravel taken from the
home rancn and a $1,400 mineral lease payment. Receipt of
these payments was admitted by the respondent. However, the
record does not contain the time they were received. The
respondent testified he applied all the proceeds to expenses
of the ranch. Appellant contends she is entitled to a full
accounting.
In Lippert v. Lippert (1981), - Mont. , 627
P.2d 1206, 1209, 38 St.Rep. 625, 629, we held, "spouses
possess mutual powers, obligations and interests which
endure until lawfully modified or terminated. One of those
powers is the power to freely contract with others regarding
marital property. Section 40-2-301, MCA."
Absent modification either spouse is free to act with
marital property. In this case the marital power to freely
contract was lawfully modified. On March 25, 1980, a
temporary order was granted by the District Court prohibit-
ing the respondent from "transferring, encumbering, con-
cealing or otherwise disposing of any real or personal
p r o p e r t y of [ s i c ] any i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y
of t h i s proceeding." T h i s r e l i e f was i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h o u r
statutes. Section 40-4-106(2)(a), MCA. A subsequent order
m o d i f y i n g t h e t e m p o r a r y o r d e r was e n t e r e d J u n e 2 , 1 9 8 0 . The
modification removed the total prohibition against the
respondent but required t h e respondent t o "account f o r a l l
monies from this date to t h e d a t e of the hearing on the
P e t i t i o n for Dissolution." On remand the respondent must
d i s c l o s e when he r e c e i v e d t h e d i s p u t e d payments. If they
were received after March 25, 1980, or remained in the
m a r i t a l e s t a t e a f t e r t h a t d a t e , t h e r e s p o n d e n t must a c c o u n t
t o the appellant f o r t h e i r disbursement.
In addition to omissions, the appellant claims the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n i t s v a l u a t i o n o f t h e home r a n c h , t h e
A l b e e Ranch, farm machinery, and t h e number o f h o r s e s owned
by t h e p a r t i e s .
At trial the p a r t i e s presented c o n f l i c t i n g evidence
regarding t h e v a l u e of t h e home r a n c h . Appellant offered
the testimony and appraisal report of a professional
certified appraiser who concluded the value of the home
r a n c h t o be $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 a s o f S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 0 . The r e s p o n d e n t
offered the testimony of a local rancher and real estate
buyer. He valued the ranch at $402,500. The District
Court, without stated reasons, accepted the lower figure.
The District Court is free to follow one appraisal and
r e j e c t another. However, h e r e t h e r e i s a w i d e d i s p a r i t y i n
valuation, and we are unable to review for abuse of
discretion in the absence of f i n d i n g s by the trial court
supporting the valuation selected.
Respondent cites Biegalke v. Biegalke (1977), 172
Mont. 3 1 1 , 564 P.2d 9 8 7 , f o r t h e r u l e t h a t " t h e t r i e r o f t h e
f a c t s h a s t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o g i v e whatever w e i g h t he s e e s f i t
t o t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e e x p e r t from 0 t o l o o % . " 564 P.2d a t
990. W think Bieqalke
e is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . In Biegalke,
the parties agreed to the court appointment of a single
appraiser, stipulated t o his qualifications, and g e n e r a l l y
accepted his appraisal without objection. On appeal, we
held the court properly exercised its discretion i n deter-
mining v a l u a t i o n . In the instant case the p a r t i e s secured
different appraisers, who presented widely conflicting
valuations. Upon r e v i e w of the record, we c a n n o t s a y t h e
District Court properly exercised its discretion in
selecting the value it did without some i n d i c a t i o n o f its
reasons f o r doing s o .
Appellant next contends t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d in
its valuation of t h e Albee Ranch. Appellant's appraiser
testified that a rejected offer of $2,600,000 from a pro-
s p e c t i v e b u y e r was a r e a s o n a b l e v a l u a t i o n . The r e s p o n d e n t ' s
appraiser testified the total market value of the Albee
Ranch was $ 2 , 0 0 5 , 5 5 0 . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d " t h e m a r k e t
v a l u e o f t h a t r a n c h f r o m t h e t e s t i m o n y o f J a c k H i r s c h y t o be
i n t h e sum o f $2,003,000." It appears t h e D i s t r i c t Court
h a s made a c l e r i c a l error which s h o u l d be corrected. In
a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t should s t a t e its reasons f o r determining
valuation. A rejected offer of $2,600,000 might well
i n d i c a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a s s i g n i n g
a value of only $2,003,000. However, we will uphold a
proper e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t and i f a
r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n e x i s t s f o r a d o p t i n g t h e lower v a l u e ,
i t s h o u l d be s t a t e d .
With r e g a r d t o a p p e l l a n t ' s challenge t o the c o u r t ' s
f i n d i n g s of v a l u a t i o n of farm machinery and t h e number of
horses, we once again find substantial disparity in the
e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i e s b u t no r e a s o n i n g g i v e n by
t h e c o u r t f o r i t s a d o p t i o n of t h e lower v a l u e s . On remand
t n e c o u r t s h o u l d e x p l a i n t h e r e a s o n s employed.
A p p o r t i o n m e n t , M a i n t e n a n c e and C h i l d S u p p o r t
True net worth of the marital estate must be
a c c u r a t e l y d e t e r m i n e d b e f o r e t h e i s s u e s of e q u i t a b l e appor-
tionment, maintenance and child support can be resolved;
however, w e have i n c l u d e d a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g t h e s e
issues t o provide guidance t o the D i s t r i c t Court.
Appellant contends the D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o apply
t h e m a n d a t e s of s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, i n t h e d i v i s i o n of
the marital property. W agree.
e The d e t e r m i n a t i o n s made
m u s t be m e a s u r e d a g a i n s t t h e s t a t u t e . I n apportioning the
m a r i t a l e s t a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t must f o l l o w t h e r e q u i r e -
m e n t s of s e c t i o n 40-4-202(1), MCA, and o u r c a s e l a w . Smith
v . Smith ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 622 P.2d 1 0 2 2 , 38 S t . R e p .
146; T e f f t v. Tefft (1981), - Mont . , 628 P.2d 1094,
38 S t . K e p . 837. I n deciding t h e i s s u e of maintenance, the
c o u r t m u s t f o l l o w t h e g u i d e l i n e s f o u n d i n s e c t i o n 40-4-203,
MCA. Bowman v . Bowman (1981), Mont. - P.2d
, 38 S t . R e p . 1515. F i n a l l y , t h e i s s u e of c h i l d s u p p o r t
m u s t be d e t e r m i n e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 40-4-204, MCA.
The District Court must, at the very least, consider and
apply the enumerated statutory factors which control the
e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n . T h i s was n o t d o n e i n t h i s c a s e .
Child Custody
The final issue we can properly review at this time
is the challenge to the custody award. In accordance with
an agreement of the parties, the District Court interviewed
the minor children to determine their custodial preferences.
In awarding custody the District Court made no specific
findings. Appellant contends the award should be reversed
because of such failure, citing section 40-4-212, MCA; In Re
Marriage of Kaasa (1979), - Mont . , 591 P.2d 1110, 36
St.Rep. 425; and In Re Marriage of Kramer (1978), 177 Mont.
61, 580 P.2d 439. We agree and hold the custody award was
deficient for failure to make proper findings.
In summary we hold the District Court did not find
the true net worth of the marital estate and inadequately
considered the statutes controlling apportionment, main-
tenance, child support and child custody awards. This cause
is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent
We concur:
d h i e f Justice