No. 80-145
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA
F
1980
I N R THE MARRIAGE O
E F
M. J . COLLETT,
P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t ,
EVELYN COLLETT,
Respondent and R e s p o n d e n t .
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 County o f J e f f e r s o n ,
The H o n o r a b l e F r a n k E . B l a i r , 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:
Skedd a n d A s h l e y , H e l e n a , Montana
F o r Respondent :
J a r d i n e & McCarthy, W h i t e h a l l , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : October 2 4 , 1980
Decided : *CAN 1 2 19%
M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
The J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y 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 of
d i s s o l u t i o n i n t h i s case o n December 7 , 1 9 7 9 . M. J. Collett, the
husband, a p p e a l s from t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h a t d e c r e e r e l a t i n g to
t h e 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 , t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n , t h e
a w a r d o f m a i n t e n a n c e and t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s .
Following n i n e t e e n y e a r s of m a r r i a g e , t h e husband f i l e d a
p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n i n t h e J e f f e r s o n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t on
May 24, 1 9 7 9 . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on A u g u s t 1, 1 9 7 9 . The m a i n
s u b j e c t o f t h e h e a r i n g was t h e v a l u e o f s e v e r a l m a r i t a l a s s e t s and
t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s .
The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e p e t i t i o n f o r
d i s s o l u t i o n was f i l e d , he had a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 7 , 0 0 0 o n d e p o s i t a t
t h e Helena C r e d i t Union. H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s o l d a
b o a t f o r $ 9 , 0 0 0 a f t e r t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . However, t h e
r e c o r d is n o t c l e a r as t o w h a t was d o n e w i t h t h e s e f u n d s b e t w e e n
t h e f i l i n g o f t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e t i m e o f t h e h e a r i n g .
M. J . C o l l e t t and E v e l y n C o l l e t t , the wife, s u b s t a n t i a l l y
a g r e e d o n t h e a p p r o x i m a t e v a l u e of m o s t of t h e items c o m p r i s i n g
t h e marital estate. The main c o n t r o v e r s y o n a p p e a l i n v o l v e s t h e
a m o u n t o f c a s h i n c l u d e d i n t h e 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 and t h e c o u r t I s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n
o f t h e p a r t i e s to t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e .
The a p p e l l a n t ' s p r i m a r y f o c u s is upon t h e p r o c e e d s f r o m
t h e s a l e o f a t r a c t o f l a n d and h o u s e . The h u s b a n d ' s
g r a n d m o t h e r , Rose S q u i r e s , p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n 1 9 6 7 f o r
$18,500. T i t l e w a s h e l d by R o s e S q u i r e s and t h e h u s b a n d i n j o i n t
t e n a n c y u n t i l 1 9 7 2 , when M r s . Squires quitclaimed her i n t e r e s t i n
t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e husband. Shortly after t h i s t r a n s f e r , t h e
husband c r e a t e d a j o i n t tenancy i n t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h t h e w i f e .
The p a r t i e s and t h e i r two c h i l d r e n l i v e d o n t h e p r o p e r t y f r o m
1 9 6 7 t h r o u g h J u n e o f 1 9 7 8 , when t h e p r o p e r t y was s o l d f o r
$65,000. Of t h e $ 6 5 , 0 0 0 i n s a l e p r o c e e d s , $ 2 8 , 3 8 0 was u s e d as a
down payment o n a p a r c e l o f l a n d and t r a i l e r home and $ 1 7 , 0 0 0 was
p l a c e d i n t h e Helena C r e d i t Union. The r e m a i n d e r of t h e p r o c e e d s
is not accounted f o r .
Following t h e hearing, the District Court entered an o r d e r
r e q u i r i n g each p a r t y t o f i l e a v e r i f i e d s t a t e m e n t of t h e marital
a s s e t s v a l u e d as of May 24, 1 9 7 9 , t h e d a t e t h e p e t i t i o n was
filed. The o r d e r f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d t h a t e i t h e r p a r t y c o u l d r e q u e s t
a h e a r i n g on t h e s u b s t a n c e of t h e v e r i f i e d s t a t e m e n t s . Both par-
t i e s f i l e d s t a t e m e n t s of t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s . The w i f e ' s s t a t e -
ment v a l u e s t h e n e t marital assets a t $79,130. The h u s b a n d ' s
s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t e s a n e t m a r i t a l e s t a t e of $ 6 0 , 4 6 5 . Although
t h e wife's statement includes several items not included i n the
h u s b a n d ' s s t a t e m e n t , t h e m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s are: husband I s state-
m e n t s t a t e s t h a t c a s h on d e p o s i t a t t h e c r e d i t u n i o n t o t a l l e d
$ 9 , 0 0 0 , w h i l e t h e w i f e s t a t e d t h e c o r r e c t amount was $ 1 7 , 0 0 0 ;
w i f e ' s s t a t e m e n t i n c l u d e s a $3600 c a m p e r t r a i l e r w h i l e t h e hus-
band s t a t e s t h a t i t was p u r c h a s e d a f t e r May 2 4 , 1 9 7 9 ; w i f e ' s s t a -
t e m e n t i n c l u d e s a $ 1 5 0 0 c o o l e r w h i l e h u s b a n d ' s s t a t e m e n t is
s i l e n t a s t o t h i s i t e m ; h u s b a n d ' s s t a t e m e n t i n c l u d e s a $2315
l i a b i l i t y w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n and s e v e r a l items had d i f f e r e n t
v a l u a t i o n s a s s i g n e d by t h e p a r t i e s . Neither party requested a
h e a r i n g on t h e v a l u a t i o n .
The w i f e s o u g h t c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r t h e c o u p l e ' s m i n o r c h i l d
a n d t h e u s e o f t h e f a m i l y ' s home u n t i l t h e c h i l d a t t a i n s
majority. She a l s o s o u g h t a t t o r n e y f e e s . The p a r t i e s a g r e e d
t h a t t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e s h o u l d be e q u a l l y d i v i d e d , and main-
t e n a n c e was n e v e r s o u g h t by e i t h e r s p o u s e .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u -
s i o n s of l a w , and d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n on December 7 , 1 9 7 9 . The
D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e husband e x e r c i s e d dominion o v e r t h e
$ 1 7 , 0 0 0 c a s h p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e 1 9 7 8 r e a l e s t a t e s a l e by
w i t h d r a w i n g t h e f u n d s f r o m t h e c r e d i t u n i o n a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of
t h e p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n and t h a t h e a l s o e x e r c i s e d d o m i n i o n
o v e r $9000 r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e s a l e of a b o a t a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of
the petition. The c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o e q u a l l y d i v i d e t h e m a r i t a l
e s t a t e ; h o w e v e r , t h e w i f e was g i v e n t h e u s e and p o s s e s s i o n of t h e
f a m i l y t r a i l e r home u n t i l t h e 1 2 y e a r o l d m i n o r r e a c h e s m a j o r i t y .
I t was f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e h o u s e and l a n d a r e t o be s o l d
when t h e c h i l d a t t a i n s m a j o r i t y , w i t h t h e p r o c e e d s e q u a l l y
d i v i d e d by t h e p a r t i e s a t t h a t t i m e . The c o u r t found t h a t t h e
w i f e r e q u i r e d a d d i t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e and o r d e r e d t h e h u s b a n d to
p a y $150 p e r month c h i l d s u p p o r t and $100 p e r month m a i n t e n a n c e
p l u s p r o v i d i n g h e a l t h and d e n t a l i n s u r a n c e . Husband was a l s o
r e q u i r e d to pay r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s of $350. In addition,
t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e husband "be r e q u i r e d t o p a y t h e
r e m a i n i n g b a l a n c e r e m a i n i n g u n p a i d upon s a i d home and l a n d as it
becomes d u e i n p a r t i a l r e c o m p e n s e f o r t h e f a i l u r e of p e t i t i o n e r
t o a c c o u n t t o r e s p o n d e n t f o r h e r s h a r e of t h e [ p r o c e e d s of t h e
1978 real estate s a l e . ] "
M. J . C o l l e t t r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
1. Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n
v a l u i n g and d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s ?
2. Whether t h e District Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n
a w a r d i n g m a i n t e n a n c e t o t h e w i f e when it was n e v e r r e q u e s t e d ?
3. Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n
a w a r d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s w i t h o u t a n y f i n d i n g o r e v i d e n c e upon
n e c e s s i t y or r e a s o n a b l e n e s s ?
The h u s b a n d f i r s t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d
i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n v a l u i n g t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e by v a l u i n g items
upon w h i c h no c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d . W e agree.
T h i s C o u r t h a s a d d r e s s e d numerous i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g t h e
v a l u a t i o n of marital estates i n r e c e n t y e a r s . The v a l u a t i o n and
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e is g o v e r n e d by s e c t i o n
40-4-202, MCA. The s t a t u t e v e s t s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h b r o a d
d i s c r e t i o n t o e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , and o u r
s c o p e o f r e v i e w is l i m i t e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t
h a s abused its d i s c r e t i o n . However, t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n sec-
t i o n 40-4-202, MCA, m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d and r e f e r r e d to i n t h e
c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and t h e r e m u s t be c o m p e t e n t e v i -
d e n c e p r e s e n t e d on t h e v a l u e s of t h e p r o p e r t y . S e e I n re
M a r r i a g e of H e r r o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 6 0 8 P.2d 9 7 , 37 S t . R e p .
3 8 7 ; Dahl v. Dahl ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 3 0 7 , 577 P.2d 1 2 3 0 .
I n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d o n
t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s e v e r a l items of p r o p e r t y or t h e v a l u e s t h e r e o f .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e l i e d e x c l u s i v e l y o n s t a t e m e n t s of and
v a l u a t i o n s of assets s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s . Where o n e item
a p p e a r e d on o n e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' s t a t e m e n t and n o t o n t h e o t h e r
p a r t i e s ' statement the court included the i t e m a t the value
stated. When t h e p a r t i e s d i s a g r e e d on a v a l u a t i o n t h e c o u r t
a s s i g n e d a v a l u e h a l f w a y b e t w e e n t h e two s u b m i t t e d v a l u a t i o n s .
The h u s b a n d a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t s e v e r a l o f t h e items l i s t e d o n t h e
w i f e ' s s t a t e m e n t o f a s s e t s were p u r c h a s e d a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h e
p e t i t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e s e items were c o n s i d e r e d twice --
o n c e i n t h e amount o f c a s h on hand o n May 24, 1 9 7 9 , and a g a i n o n
t h e amount o f t h e a s s e t p u r c h a s e d a f t e r s a i d d a t e .
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p u r p o r t e d to e q u a l l y
d i v i d e t h e estate. T h i s , h o w e v e r , was n o t d o n e . The c o u r t
s t a t e d t h a t t h e e q u i t y i n t h e f a m i l y t r a i l e r home and l a n d s h o u l d
b e e q u a l l y d i v i d e d , b u t t h e n r e q u i r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o make a l l
f u t u r e p a y m e n t s on t h e p r o p e r t y i n " p a r t i a l r e c o m p e n s e " f o r h i s
p r i o r conduct. T h i s s p e c i f i c c o n c l u s i o n , which is p r e v i o u s l y
quoted, is a k i n t o a n a s s e s s m e n t of p u n i t i v e damages. Section
40-4-202, MCA, e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e c o u r t is n o t t o con-
s i d e r any marital misconduct i n d i s p o s i n g of t h e marital assets.
A s w e s t a t e d i n Cook v. Cook ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 614
311 ,I\
"The v a l u a t i o n o f a s s e t s and t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n
o f n e t w o r t h a r e two i m p o r t a n t s t e p s which m u s t
b e made by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s i n t h e a p p o r t i o n -
ment p r o c e s s ... From t h e s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , a
b a s i s is p r o v i d e d f r o m w h i c h a D i s t r i c t C o u r t
may make, o r a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may d e c i d e , t h a t
a n a p p o r t i o n m e n t is e q u i t a b l e . W i t h o u t t h e s e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of
marital assets amounts o n l y to guesswork. This
case m u s t , t h e r e f o r e , b e remanded t o t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t s o t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' marital
e s t a t e may be d i s t r i b u t e d o n t h i s b a s i s .
"By o u r d e c i s i o n t o d a y , we ... i n t e n d o n l y to
r e e m p h a s i z e t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t a k i n g c e r t a i n
p r e l i m i n a r y s t e p s be£ o r e p r o p e r t y is
d i s t r i b u t e d . Where p a r t i e s c a n n o t a g r e e as t o
t h e v a l u e of a p a r t i c u l a r a s s e t , w e f u r t h e r
e n c o u r a g e c o u n s e l t o p r o v i d e ample t e s t i m o n y f o r
t h e D i s t r i c t Court regarding values. . ."
I n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s v a l u a t i o n of
many o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s a m o u n t s t o " g u e s s w o r k , " p r i m a r i l y d u e
t o t h e a t t o r n e y s ' f a i l u r e " t o p r o v i d e ample t e s t i m o n y f o r t h e
District Court regarding values." W e t h e r e f o r e remand t h i s c a u s e
t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o r e q u i r e t h e p a r t i e s to s u b m i t c o m p e t e n t
e v i d e n c e on t h e v a l u e o f d i s p u t e d items o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y and
t h e r e f o r e to e q u i t a b l y d i s t r i b u t e t h e assets p u r s u a n t to t h e fac-
t o r s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA.
The h u s b a n d on a p p e a l a r g u e s t h a t h e s h o u l d be g i v e n
c r e d i t f o r t h e v a l u e o f t h e l a n d g i f t e d t o him by h i s g r a n d -
mother. To p a r a p h r a s e h i s a r g u m e n t , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d
g i v e t h e h u s b a n d c r e d i t f o r t h e v a l u e of t h e l a n d e x c l u s i v e o f
t h e a p p r e c i a t i o n o c c u r r i n g a f t e r 1 9 7 2 , when h e c r e a t e d a j o i n t
tenancy with h i s wife. However, p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 40-4-202,
MCA, t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f p r o p e r t y by g i f t is o n l y o n e f a c t o r to be
c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of b o t h
spouses. W e have c o n s t r u e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s t a t u t e i n t h e
c o n t e x t of t h e r e c e i p t o f a g i f t or i n h e r i t a n c e i n s e v e r a l r e c e n t
cases. I n re M a r r i a g e o f H e r r o n , s u p r a ; I n re M a r r i a g e of
Metcalf ( 1979 ) , Mont . , 598 P.2d 1 1 4 0 , 3 6 S t . R e p . 1559; I n
re M a r r i a g e of Balsam ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 5 8 9 P.2d 652, 36
St.Rep. 7 9 ; I n re M a r r i a g e of Brown ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 587
P.2d 361, 3 5 S t . R e p . 1733. Upon remand t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e g u i d e l i n e s p r o v i d e d by s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA,
and t h e s e cases i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of
the parties.
W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e award of m a i n t e n a n c e , t h e D i s t r i c t
Court f a i l e d to c o n s i d e r t h e g u i d e l i n e s provided i n s e c t i o n
40-4-203, MCA, and made no s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s w i t h r e g a r d to t h e
award of maintenance. It a p p e a r s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court based
i t s award o f m a i n t e n a n c e o n t h r e e e r r o n e o u s o r u n s u p p o r t e d
findings: (1) W i f e r e c e i v e s a n e t sum o f $400 p e r month from h e r
e m p l o y m e n t ; ( 2 ) s h e is e n t i t l e d to w e l f a r e a s s i s t a n c e ; a n d ( 3 )
h u s b a n d h a s o n l y f u r n i s h e d w i f e w i t h $400 f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e
f a m i l y w i t h i n t h e l a s t n i n e months. The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t
t h e w i f e is employed by t h e S t a t e a t t h e B o u l d e r R i v e r S c h o o l ,
b u t no e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e w i f e ' s e a r n i n g s was p r e s e n t e d .
Wife I s t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t s h e was e l i g i b l e f o r w e l f a r e
a s s i s t a n c e a t a t i m e when s h e was o n s t r i k e b u t t h e r e was no e v i -
d e n c e p r e s e n t e d on h e r c u r r e n t s t a t u s . W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e amount
f u r n i s h e d by h u s b a n d f o r s u p p o r t , t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l s t h a t h e p a i d
$400-$500 p l u s p a y i n g t h e u t i l i t y c h a r g e a c c o u n t and o t h e r s i m i -
l a r b i l l s i n t h e t h r e e months p r i o r to t h e h e a r i n g . A s pre-
v i o u s l y s t a t e d , n e i t h e r p a r t y sought maintenance. Further, at
t h e h e a r i n g t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e would be s a t i s f i e d w i t h
a n e q u a l d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e , $ 2 0 0 per month i n c h i l d
s u p p o r t p l u s h e a l t h b e n e f i t s and a n e q u a l d i v i s i o n o f t h e h o u s e
and l a n d payments. Upon remand t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r
t h e g u i d e l i n e s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 40-4-203, MCA, i f maintenance
is awarded.
N e x t a p p e l l a n t asserts t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g
a t t o r n e y f e e s to t h e wife. W agree.
e Again, t h e District Court
made no f i n d i n g s o f n e c e s s i t y f o r o r r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e award
o f $350. Also, t h e record does not d i s c l o s e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t
c o n s i d e r e d how t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n , c h i l d s u p p o r t , main-
t e n a n c e and award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t e r r e l a t e .
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t is v a c a t e d and t h e
c a u s e remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i -
n i o n and t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n s 40-4-202 and 40-4-203, MCA.
F o r a l l c o n c e r n e d i t is b e s t t h a t t h e r e be a f u l l h e a r i n g upon
t h e v a l u a t i o n of and c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e as w e l l
a s t h e s t a t u s of t h e p a r t i e s , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e f a c t o r s
p r o v i d e d i n t h e U n i f o r m M a r r i a g e and D i v o r c e A c t .