No. 80-74
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
BEVERLY J. TEFFT,
Petitioner and Appellant,
ALFRED E. TEFFT,
Respondent and Respondent.
Appeal from: ~istrictCourt of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Cascade.
Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Randono and Donovan, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Smith, Baillie & Walsh, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on briefs: February 5, 1981
- Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.
On F e b r u a r y 27, 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a
d e c r e e which d i s s o l v e d t h e m a r r i a g e of p e t i t i o n e r and r e s p o n -
d e n t , e s t a b l i s h e d c h i l d c u s t o d y and c h i l d s u p p o r t , d i v i d e d
t h e r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y c o m p r i s i n g t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e
and o r d e r e d t h a t e a c h p a r t y pay h i s o r h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s .
T h i s d e c r e e was amended March 25, 1980, and from t h a t amended
order, p e t i t i o n e r appeals.
B e v e r l y and A l f r e d T e f f t m a r r i e d on November 20, 1965.
A l f r e d , a widower, had f o u r c h i l d r e n from h i s p r i o r m a r r i a g e .
These c h i l d r e n were a d o p t e d by B e v e r l y f o l l o w i n g t h e m a r r i a g e .
B e v e r l y and A l f r e d had no o t h e r c h i l d r e n .
B e v e r l y i s a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r working a t C h a r l e s M.
R u s s e l l High School i n G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. H e r income f o r
1978 w a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $15,000. Alfred i s a v i c e president
of t h e Cogswell Agency, a n e s t a b l i s h e d i n s u r a n c e f i r m i n
Great F a l l s . H i s income f o r 1978 from t h i s f i r m w a s a p p r o x i -
m a t e l y $34,250.
A t t h e t i m e t h e d e c r e e was e n t e r e d t h e a g e s of the four
c h i l d r e n were: Gregory, 2 1 ; T e r r i e , 1 9 ; T r a c y , 1 8 ; and
Kristie, 17. The d e c r e e g r a n t e d c u s t o d y of K r i s t i e t o
Beverly. The c o u r t o r d e r e d A l f r e d t o pay $200 p e r month
c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r K r i s t i e , Tracy and T e r r i e . The d e c r e e
r e c o g n i z e d t h a t T e r r i e s u f f e r e d from a l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y
which slowed h e r e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s . Alfred's obligation
t o s u p p o r t t h e t h r e e d a u g h t e r s e x t e n d e d u n t i l e a c h was
g r a d u a t e d from h i g h s c h o o l o r o t h e r w i s e became emancipated.
The d e c r e e f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d t h a t A l f r e d c o u l d a p p l y h i s
d a u g h t e r s ' s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s on his s u p p o r t o b l i -
The d e c r e e o r d e r e d t h a t Beverly was e n t i t l e d t o u s e of
t h e f a m i l y home u n t i l t h e t h r e e d a u g h t e r s w e r e g r a d u a t e d
from h i g h s c h o o l o r o t h e r w i s e became emancipated. The home
and f u r n i s h i n g s were t h e n t o be s o l d and t h e n e t p r o c e e d s
divided equally. N s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n was made r e g a r d i n g
o
mortgage payments d u r i n g t h e i n t e r i m .
The r e m a i n i n g r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y ( w i t h t h e ex-
c e p t i o n of s p e c i f i e d f a m i l y h e i r l o o m s conceded t o A l f r e d )
were v a l u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and d i v i d e d on a 50-50
basis. Certain investment p r o p e r t i e s acquired during t h e
m a r r i a g e were o r d e r e d t o be s o l d a s soon a s p o s s i b l e and t h e
n e t proceeds divided equally. A t t o r n e y f e e s were made t h e
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of e a c h p a r t y .
Motions t o a l t e r o r amend t h e d e c r e e were f i l e d by b o t h
parties. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t amended t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e .
The amending o r d e r e l i m i n a t e d A l f r e d ' s o b l i g a t i o n of s u p p o r t
f o r t h e a d u l t d a u g h t e r s , T e r r i e and Tracy. The o r d e r i n c r e a s e d
t h e monthly s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n f o r K r i s t i e t o $250. Alfred
c o u l d a p p l y K r i s t i e ' s s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s toward h i s
support obligation. The s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s of T e r r i e
and Tracy were o r d e r e d t h e i r own p r o p e r t y , and t h e two were
advised t o apply f o r t h e b e n e f i t s i n t h e i r individual
names.
The amending o r d e r a l s o a l t e r e d t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e by
a l l o w i n g A l f r e d t o pay Beverly h a l f of t h e v a l u e p l a c e d on
t h e i n v e s t m e n t p r o p e r t i e s i n s t e a d of s e l l i n g t h e p r o p e r t i e s
and d i v i d i n g t h e p r o c e e d s . Under t h i s amendment B e v e r l y was
g i v e n a judgment of $17,346.50 f o r her i n t e r e s t i n t h e
investment p r o p e r t i e s .
The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e d e a l t w i t h on a p p e a l :
1. Whether p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o a l t e r o r amend t h e
o r i g i n a l d e c r e e was t i m e l y h e a r d a s p r e s c r i b e d by ~ u l e
59 ( d ) ( g ) , M.R.Civ.P.?
2. Whether t h i s a p p e a l i s l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o t h e m a t t e r s
d e a l t w i t h i n t h e amending o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
b e c a u s e t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s n o t i c e of a p p e a l o n l y d e s i g n a t e d
t h e amending o r d e r and n o t t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e ?
3 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by
n o t awarding c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r T e r r i e and T r a c y , a g e s 1 9 and
18, r e s p e c t i v e l y ?
4 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g a $200
p e r month c r e d i t a g a i n s t c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r s o c i a l s e c u r i t y
payments r e c e i v e d ?
5. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o
properly value the investment p r o p e r t i e s i n the m a r i t a l
estate?
6. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by e f f e c t i n g a 50-
50 p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e ?
7. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n n o t awarding
-.
attorney fees t o the petitioner?
The f i r s t two p r o c e d u r a l i s s u e s must be a d d r e s s e d a t
the outset. Rule 59 ( g ) , M.R.Civ.P., s t a t e s t h a t motions t o
amend a judgment must be h e a r d and d e t e r m i n e d w i t h i n t h e
same t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s which a p p l y t o m o t i o n s f o r new t r i a l .
Rule 59 ( d ) , X.R.Civ.P. , sets f o r t h t h o s e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s .
This provision s t a t e s :
"Hearing on t h e motion s h a l l b e had w i t h i n 10 d a y s
a f t e r i t h a s been s e r v e d . . . e x c e p t t h a t a t any
t i m e a f t e r t h e n o t i c e of h e a r i n g on t h e motion h a s
been s e r v e d t h e c o u r t may i s s u e a n o r d e r c o n t i n u i n g
t h e h e a r i n g f o r n o t t o exceed 30 d a y s . In case
t h e h e a r i n g i s c o n t i n u e d by t h e c o u r t , i t s h a l l b e
t h e d u t y of t h e c o u r t t o h e a r t h e same a t t h e
e a r l i e s t p r a c t i c a b l e d a t e t h e r e a f t e r , and t h e c o u r t
s h a l l r u l e upon and d e c i d e t h e motion w i t h i n 1 5
days ...
" I f t h e motion i s n o t n o t i c e d up f o r h e a r i n g and no
h e a r i n g i s h e l d t h e r e o n , i t s h a l l be deemed d e n i e d
a s of t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e p e r i o d t i m e w i t h i n
which h e a r i n g i s r e q u i r e d t o be h e l d under t h i s
Rule 59."
I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d and s e r v e d a
motion t o amend on March 6, 1980. Because s e r v i c e was
accomplished by m a i l , a n a d d i t i o n a l t h r e e d a y s must be added
t o t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n Rule 59 ( d ) . Rule 6 ( e ),
M.R.Civ.P. T h e r e f o r e , t h e h e a r i n g on t h i s motion t o amend
was e i t h e r r e q u i r e d t o be h e l d w i t h i n 1 3 d a y s , commencing on
March 7 , 1980, o r was r e q u i r e d t o be c o n t i n u e d by t h e c o u r t
w i t h i n 1 3 d a y s , commencing w i t h March 7 , 1980.
On March 1 8 , 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , s u a s p o n t e ,
e n t e r e d a n o r d e r s e t t i n g a h e a r i n g d a t e on p e t i t i o n e r ' s
motion t o amend ( a s w e l l as r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion t o amend of
March 7 , 1980) f o r March 21, 1980. T h i s o r d e r was f i l e d on
March 1 9 , 1980, which was t h e l a s t day of t h e 13-day p e r i o d .
The c o u r t ' s o r d e r of March 1 8 , 1980, c o n s t i t u t e s a
c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e h e a r i n g d a t e on t h e motions t o a l t e r o r
amend. T h a t o r d e r d i d s e t a h e a r i n g d a t e w i t h i n t h e 30-day
p e r i o d r e q u i r e d by Rule 5 9 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t t h e n r u l e d on t h e motions t o a l t e r o r amend w i t h i n
f i v e days following t h e hearing. Therefore, the D i s t r i c t
C o u r t ' s a c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s motions t o a l t e r
o r amend t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y t i m e
r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n Rule 5 9 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. The amend-
i n g o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s v a l i d .
R e s p o n d e n t ' s second p r o c e d u r a l i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e s c o p e
of t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s n o t i c e of a p p e a l . On A p r i l 11, 1980,
p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l s t a t i n g t h a t ". . .
B e v e r l y J. T e f f t ... hereby a p p e a l s . . . from t h e d e c i s i o n
o f Judge J o e l G. Roth d a t e d March 2 4 , 1980, amending h i s
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 and Decree." Re-
s p o n d e n t a r g u e s t h a t t h i s a p p e a l must be l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o
i s s u e s a r i s i n g from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s amending o r d e r
b e c a u s e Rule 4 ( c ) , M.R.App.Civ.P., provides t h a t : "The
n o t i c e of a p p e a l ... s h a l l d e s i g n a t e t h e judgment o r o r d e r
a p p e a l e d from." Respondent c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e amending o r d e r
and o r i g i n a l d e c r e e i n t h i s a c t i o n are n e c e s s a r i l y s e p a r a t e
and d i s t i n c t ; t h u s r e s p o n d e n t a r g u e s t h a t a s p e c i f i c n o t i c e
of a p p e a l from t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e i s r e q u i r e d b e f o r e r e v i e w
of t h a t d e c r e e i s p o s s i b l e .
Respondent's contention ignores t h e interdependent
n a t u r e of t h e amending o r d e r and t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e .
F i n a l i t y of t h e o r i g i n a l judgment must a w a i t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n
by t h e lower c o u r t r e g a r d i n g motions t o amend o r a l t e r .
T h i s i s e v i d e n c e d by Rule 5 , M.R.App.Civ.P., which s u s p e n d s
t h e r u n n i n g of t h e t i m e w i t h i n which a n a p p e a l must be
t a k e n , w h i l e a motion t o a l t e r o r amend a judgment i s b e i n g
considered. The i n t e r t w i n e m e n t of an amending o r d e r and a n
o r i g i n a l judgment n e c e s s i t a t e s r e v i e w of a l l i s s u e s con-
t a i n e d i n b o t h ; t h u s a n a p p e a l from e i t h e r i n c o r p o r a t e s a l l
i s s u e s of b o t h f o r review. This holding i s i n keeping with
t h e p h i l o s o p h y of modern a p p e l l a t e p r a c t i c e t h a t t e c h n i c a l
d e f e c t s of p r o c e d u r e s h o u l d n o t b a r a p a r t y from a c c e s s t o
the courts. J.C. Penney, I n c . and F . W . Woolworth Co. v .
Employment S e c u r i t y D i v i s i o n (1981) , -Mont. -I -P.2d -- ,
3 8 St.Rep. 694.
The s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v i n g a n a p p e a l from an amending
o r d e r , a s i s t h e c a s e h e r e , must be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from
s i t u a t i o n s where a p a r t y a p p e a l s from one o r d e r i n a series
of s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t o r d e r s , o r from one p a r t of a
d i v i s i b l e judgment. This Court has previously held t h a t a
f a i l u r e t o d e s i g n a t e a l l o r d e r s o r t h e e n t i r e judgment i n
such s i t u a t i o n s l i m i t s t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t s o l e l y t o t h e
matters d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e a p p e a l n o t i c e . S t a t e v. odd
C1945), 117 Mont. 80, 158 P.2d 299; S p e r l i n g v . C a l f e e
( 1 8 8 8 ) , 7 Mont. 514, 19 P . 204. However, a n amending o r d e r
and an o r i g i n a l judgment c a n n o t b e viewed as s e p a r a t e and
d i s t i n c t o r d i v i s i b l e and, t h e r e f o r e , t h i s r u l e c a n n o t be
applied i n the case a t bar. P e t i t i o n e r ' s n o t i c e of a p p e a l
i s s u f f i c i e n t t o p r e s e r v e a l l i s s u e s f o r review.
P e t i t i o n e r ' s n e x t i s s u e on a p p e a l c o n c e r n s t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t ' s t e r m i n a t i o n of c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r t h e two a d u l t
d a u g h t e r s , T e r r i e and Tracy. P e t i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s t h a t such
a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s e r r o r on t h e p a r t of t h e lower c o u r t .
However, i n C h r e s t e n s o n v. C h r e s t e n s o n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont.
,
- 589 P.2d 148, 36 St.Rep. 103, t h i s C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d
t h a t a p a r e n t ' s l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n under Montana c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
and s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s t e r m i n a t e d when a c h i l d became a n
adult. The C h r e s t e n s o n c o u r t f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t t h i s d e t e r -
m i n a t i o n d i d n o t c o n t r a d i c t s e c t i o n 4 8 - 3 3 0 ( 3 ) , R.C.M., 1947,
(now s e c t i o n 40-4-208, MCA) which a l l o w s : "parties t o agree
i n w r i t i n g o r e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e i n t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n
f o r t e r m i n a t i o n of c h i l d s u p p o r t a t an a g r e e d upon a g e o r
time." C h r e s t e n s o n a t 150. In the case a t bar, the p a r t i e s
d i d n o t r e a c h any agreement.
I n t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , r e s p o n d e n t
A l f r e d T e f f t was o r d e r e d t o pay $200 p e r month f o r e a c h of
h i s t h r e e d a u g h t e r s , who were s t i l l r e s i d i n g a t t h e f a m i l y
home w i t h p e t i t i o n e r B e v e r l y T e f f t . This support o b l i g a t i o n
was t o end when e a c h g i r l completed h i g h s c h o o l . ~ollowing
t h e h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e motions t o amend, t h e ~ i s t r i c t
C o u r t a l t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and d e c r e e by
terminating the support obligation a s t o ~ e r r i e
and Tracy.
These d a u g h t e r s w e r e 1 9 and 1 8 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , a t t h e t i m e
the o r i g i n a l decree w a s entered. S i n c e no agreement between
t h e p a r t i e s existed regarding support f o r these a d u l t c h i l -
d r e n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s merely conforming i t s o r i g i n a l
d e c r e e w i t h t h e law espoused i n C h r e s t e n s o n . This p o r t i o n
of t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
P e t i t i o n e r next contends t h a t the D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d
i n allowing respondent, Alfred T e f f t , t o apply s o c i a l s e c u r i t y
b e n e f i t s r e c e i v e d by him on b e h a l f of K r i s t i e , t h e minor
c h i l d , toward h i s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t
o r d e r e d A l f r e d t o pay $250 p e r month f o r K r i s t i e . The
s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s r e c e i v a b l e on b e h a l f of K r i s t i e
amounted t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y $200 p e r month. Thus, i n e f f e c t ,
t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r r e q u i r e d A l f r e d t o pay o n l y $50 p e r month
c h i l d s u p p o r t from h i s own f u n d s .
S e c t i o n 40-4-204, MCA, sets forth relevant factors a
c o u r t must l o o k t o i n d e t e r m i n i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t . The f a c t o r s
are:
" ( 1 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e c h i l d ;
" ( 2 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ;
" ( 3 ) t h e s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g t h e c h i l d would have en-
joyed had t h e m a r r i a g e n o t been d i s s o l v e d ;
" ( 4 ) t h e p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e
c h i l d and h i s e d u c a t i o n a l needs; and
" ( 5 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s and needs of t h e noncus-
t o d i a l parent. "
The lower c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y from b o t h B e v e r l y T e f f t and
Alfred Tefft. Evidence e x i s t e d ( a l t h o u g h n o t e x t e n s i v e )
r e g a r d i n g t h e f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h above. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s
o r d e r acknowledged t h a t t h e s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s were
t h e p r o p e r t y of K r i s t i e . The c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t K r i s t i e
needed $250 s u p p o r t e a c h month, and t h a t $200 of s u c h amount
would be s u p p l i e d by h e r own f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s .
Although A l f r e d T e f f t h a s an income of more t h a n $34,000
a y e a r and pays o n l y $50 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t , t h i s f a c t
a l o n e i s n o t d e t e r m i n a t i v e t h a t t h e lower c o u r t abused i t s
discretion. The need o f t h e c h i l d , a s w e l l a s t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l
p a r e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o p a y , must be c o n s i d e r e d . S e c t i o n 40-4-
204, MCA. W e cannot say 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 a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e o r d e r of s u p p o r t i s a f f i r m e d .
P e t i t i o n e r s p e c i f i e s several e r r o r s regarding the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s v a l u a t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e f o r p u r p o s e s
of d i s t r i b u t i o n . A f t e r c a r e f u l review, we f i n d t h a t t h e
c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s p o s i n g of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e .
The d e c r e e p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e on 1017
Durange, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana, was t o b e u s e d by B e v e r l y and
t h e t h r e e d a u g h t e r s u n t i l t h e y o u n g e s t w a s g r a d u a t e d from
h i g h s c h o o l o r o t h e r w i s e became e m a n c i p a t e d . Upon s u c h oc-
c u r r e n c e , t h e home and f u r n i s h i n g s w e r e t o b e s o l d a s soon
a s p o s s i b l e and t h e n e t p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d e q u a l l y .
No o r d e r w a s made r e g a r d i n g t h e $250 monthly mortgage
payment. Under t h e d e c r e e A l f r e d h a s no o b l i g a t i o n t o make
t h e payment. B e v e r l y , who l i v e s i n t h e home, w i l l s a t i s f y
t h i s obligation thereby building f u t u r e equity f o r Alfred.
Such a n a r r a n g e m e n t w i l l r e s u l t i n a n i n e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n
of a s s e t s a t t h e t i m e o f s a l e and c a n n o t b e s u s t a i n e d .
R e g a r d i n g A l f r e d ' s i n v e s t m e n t s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made
the following findings, p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s decision:
Asset Current Amount Net
Market Owed Value
Value Thereon
40 A c r e s A c q u i r e d From A m e r - $ 2,500
i c a n Montana Land
American Montana Land 1 / 6 t h Unknown Unknown Unknown
Interest
Command P a r t n e r s 1 / 7 t h $ 6,500
Interest
W e s t American Lands I n c . . $12,285 $12,285 None
1/7th I n t e r e s t
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r i g i n a l l y o r d e r e d t h a t t h i s p r o p e r t y ,
a l o n g w i t h a l l o t h e r i n v e s t m e n t p r o p e r t y , b e s o l d and t h e
proceeds divided equally. I n i t s o r d e r amending t h e d e c r e e ,
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l t e r e d t h i s and o r d e r e d t h a t A l f r e d pay
t o B e v e r l y h a l f of t h e e q u i t y . The c o u r t f a i l e d t o d e t e r -
mine a v a l u e f o r one of t h e p r o p e r t i e s . Thus t h e v a l u a t i o n
on which t h e d i s p o s i t i o n i s based i s i n a d e q u a t e , and t h i s
c a u s e must be remanded. Hamilton v. Hamilton ( 1 9 8 0 ) , -
Mont. , 607 P.2d 102, 37 St.Rep. 247.
A d d i t i o n a l l y , problems a r i s e r e g a r d i n g t h e c o u r t ' s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of A l f r e d ' s e q u i t y i n t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s , t h u s
c r e a t i n g problems i n t h e n e t worth d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Alfred
t e s t i f i e d twice i n t h i s matter. I n December 1979, A l f r e d
s t a t e d he owned a 1 / 6 t h i n t e r e s t i n a c o r p o r a t i o n denomi-
n a t e d named American Montana Land. This c o r p o r a t i o n purchased
250 a c r e s of r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d . Alfred t e s t i f i e d t h a t the
c o r p o r a t i o n owed $26,500 on t h e p r o p e r t y . He stated that
t h e c o r p o r a t i o n had deeded 4 0 a c r e s of t h e l a n d t o him
individually. A l f r e d f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d h e d i d n ' t know i f
any encumbrances, o t h e r t h a n t h e one on t h e e n t i r e t r a c t ,
e x i s t e d on t h i s 40-acre p a r c e l . A l f r e d s a i d he d i d n ' t know
what comparable l a n d i n t h e same a r e a was s e l l i n g f o r b u t
s p e c u l a t e d t h a t h i s p a r c e l was worth $2,000-$3,000. he
c o u r t a c c e p t e d t h i s v a l u a t i o n , p l a c i n g a $2,500 v a l u e on t h e
40 acres. The c o u r t a l s o found t h a t A l f r e d ' s 1 / 6 t h i n t e r e s t
i n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n had a n unknown v a l u e .
When A l f r e d t e s t i f i e d i n J a n u a r y 1980, s e v e r a l a s p e c t s
o f t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n had changed. The c o r p o r a t i o n which
owned t h e 250 a c r e s of r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d was now c a l l e d West
American Land C o r p o r a t i o n . Alfred d i d not explain the
change i n c o r p o r a t i o n ownership, b u t a p p a r e n t l y West American
Land C o r p o r a t i o n succeeded t o t h e i n t e r e s t of American
Montana Land. H i s i n t e r e s t i n West American Land was 1 / 7 t h .
NO mention w a s made of t h e 40-acre t r a c t of l a n d deeded t o
him. A l f r e d e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n l a n d had no
equity. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $26,500 encumbrance o r i g i n a l l y
t e s t i f i e d t o , A l f r e d s t a t e d t h a t t h e l a n d was pledged a s
s e c u r i t y f o r a $60,000 n o t e a t a l o c a l bank. The r e c o r d i s
u n c l e a r on whether A l f r e d ' s 40-acre t r a c t i s s o encumbered.
However, t h e r e a p p a r e n t l y i s a n $86,500 d e b t a g a i n s t t h e
corporate land. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t A l f r e d ' s
i n t e r e s t i n t h e W e s t American Lands Corp. had no v a l u e
b e c a u s e t h e v a l u e of t h e l a n d d i d n o t exceed t h e amount of
i t s encumbrance. I n making t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e c o u r t
c o n s i d e r e d t h e $60r000 n o t e t o be a l i a b i l i t y of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n .
The problem r e s u l t i n g from t h i s , i s t h a t t h e $60,000
borrowed by West American Land was used a s i n v e s t m e n t f u n d s
i n A l f r e d ' s l a t e s t e n t e r p r i s e , Command P a r t n e r s , f r a n c h i s e .
A l f r e d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and s i x o t h e r p e o p l e c o n t r i b u t e d
$6,500 e a c h toward t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e of t h e f r a n c h i s e p l u s
t h e $60,000 o b t a i n e d by p l e d g i n g t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d . In
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s , however, t h i s $60,000 was n o t
added a s e q u i t y ; a l t h o u g h i t was c a l c u l a t e d a s a l i a b i l i t y
i n v a l u i n g t h e c o r p o r a t e s t o c k of West American Land. The
c o u r t found t h a t A l f r e d ' s i n t e r e s t i n Command P a r t n e r s was
o n l y $6,500.
From t h i s t e s t i m o n y i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t a t r u e n e t
worth of t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s was n o t made. Encumbrances on t h e
v a r y i n g p r o p e r t i e s were n o t c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d , nor was
t h e proper equity i n t h e s e proper ties calculated.
P e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t s e e k a maintenance award, b u t o n l y
a n e q u i t a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t found, r e g a r d i n g t h e r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s of b o t h B e v e r l y
and A l f r e d , t h a t :
". . . t h e n e e d s of t h e p a r t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o s h e l t e r ,
food, c l o t h i n g , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , u t i l i t i e s , and t h e
normal e x p e n s e s of l i v i n g a r e r e l a t i v e l y e q u a l . . .
t h e P e t i t i o n e r B e v e r l y and Respondent A l f r e d have a n
e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of i n -
come and c a p i t a l a s s e t s b u t t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t
Respondent A l f r e d i s p r e s e n t l y e a r n i n g o v e r t w i c e
t h e amount of t h e income of P e t i t i o n e r B e v e r l y and
w i l l p r o b a b l y c o n t i n u e t o do s o ... the contributions
of t h e P e t i t i o n e r B e v e r l y and t h e Respondent A l f r e d
t o the family u n i t a r e equal."
B e v e r l y c u r r e n t l y e a r n s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $15,000 p e r y e a r .
She i s paying $250 p e r month f o r mortgage payments on t h e
house. Three c h i l d r e n s t i l l r e s i d e a t t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e .
These c h i l d r e n do n o t have r e g u l a r employment, t h u s r e q u i r -
i n g some f i n a n c i a l h e l p . A l f r e d i s o b l i g a t e d t o pay s u p p o r t
f o r o n l y one of t h e c h i l d r e n . R e a l i t y d i c t a t e s t h a t under
t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s B e v e r l y would have a v e r y poor o p p o r t u n i t y
f o r t h e f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l assets and income.
On t h e o t h e r hand, A l f r e d e a r n s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $34,000.
H e h a s been r e c e i v i n g a n n u a l r a i s e s of a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,000
per year. H i s position i n the established insurance firm,
Cogswell Agency, i s s e c u r e . H i s only personal obligation
v i a t h i s d i s s o l u t i o n i s c h i l d s u p p o r t of $50 p e r month.
Clearly, Alfred has f a r g r e a t e r opportunity f o r f u t u r e
a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l a s s e t s and income.
I n l i g h t o f Smith v. Smith ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -Mont.- , 622 P. 2d
1022, 38 St.Rep. 146, t h i s 50-50 d i s t r i b u t i o n c a n n o t s t a n d .
The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s have e q u a l a c c e s s t o
t h e f u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n of c a p i t a l i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s and
a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . Z e l l v. Zell (1980), -Mont. - I
L a s t l y , p e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court
e r r e d i n n o t awarding h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s . Regarding a t t o r n e y
f e e s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t :
"Although P e t i t i o n e r Beverly s e e k s h e r a t t o r n e y
f e e s h e r e i n , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t upon c o n s i d -
e r a t i o n of t h e income of P e t i t i o n e r Beverly and
t h e property d i s t r i b u t i o n ordered herein, t h a t
e a c h p a r t y i s a b l e t o pay h i s / h e r own a t t o r n e y
f e e s and c o s t s and i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s / h e r
own a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s i n c u r r e d h e r e i n . "
Based on t h i s f i n d i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d e a c h
p a r t y t o pay h i s o r h e r own a t t o r n e y f e e s .
P e t i t i o n e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s improper
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of n e t worth and improper p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n
n e c e s s i t a t e s r e v e r s a l of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n n o t t o
award a t t o r n e y f e e s t o B e v e r l y T e f f t . I n l i g h t of t h i s
C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o remand r e g a r d i n g t h e i s s u e s of m a r i t a l
e s t a t e n e t worth and d i s t r i b u t i o n , we b e l i e v e i t b e s t t o
v a c a t e t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e g a r d i n g a t t o r n e y
f e e s and l e a v e i t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a s t o
whether m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s o r d e r i s n e c e s s a r y
following rehearing i n accordance with t h i s opinion.
I n summary we a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c r e e a s i t
r e l a t e s t o c h i l d support. W e r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on
(1) f a i l u r e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e f o r payment of t h e home
mortgage, ( 2 ) f a i l u r e t o value a l l marital a s s e t s , (3)
f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e n e t w o r t h , and, (4) failure to
consider t h e husband's considerably g r e a t e r opportunity f o r
a c c u m u l a t i o n of f u t u r e a s s e t s .
The m a t t e r i s remanded f o r h e a r i n g i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
t h i s opinion.
We concur: