No. 82-97
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F MONTANA
F
1982
I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F
174Y'HLEEN ANN V I N N E R ,
P e t i t i o n e r and R e s p o n d e n t ,
1bUIiRK KINSEY VIiJNER,
Respondent and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e 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 of Y e l l o w s t o n e , The H o n o r a b l e
Diane G. B a r z , 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:
R a l p h L. H e r r i o t t , B i l l i n g s , Montana
For Respondent :
S a n d a l l & Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted on B r i e f s : O c t o b e r 1 4 , 1982
Decided: December 3 , 1 9 8 2
Filed : \-!LC f: 'lY8'h,
'
Mr. Justice John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e Opinion of the
Court.
R e s p o n d e n t w i f e commenced t h i s a c t i o n f o r a d e c r e e of d i s s o -
l u t i o n of marriage in the Thirteenth Judicial District, i n and
f o r t h e County of Y e l l o w s t o n e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d -
ings of fact and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w on December 2 4 , 1981, and
f i n a l judgment and d e c r e e on J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1 9 8 2 . A p p e l l a n t husband
appeals from the District Court's judgment and decree.
The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d i n B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a , o n J a n u a r y 2 ,
1973. The m a r r i a g e p r o d u c e d two children. The w i f e was a g e 28
a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and is employed i n t h e c u s t o m e r ser-
vice department of the B i l l i n g s Water D e p a r t m e n t . Wife earns
approximately $1,200 per month and takes home about $800 p e r
month. Wife a l s o h a s a o n e - s i x t h i n t e r e s t i n a f a m i l y farm which
y i e l d s h e r $1,500 income p e r y e a r . Husband was a g e 3 1 a t the
t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and i s employed a s a s a l e s p e r s o n a t C h a n t e l
Jewelers. Husband earns an average of $816.74 per month and
t a k e s home a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 6 6 9 . 8 0 p e r month.
The p a r t i e s a c c u m u l a t e d v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y d u r i n g t h e
m a r r i a g e w h i c h was d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s upon t h e i r s e p a r a -
tion. The p a r t i e s a l s o p u r c h a s e d a home l o c a t e d a t 2 2 1 S u b u r b a n
Drive. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h e home h a s a p r e s e n t v a l u e of
$59,700. The home has a mortgage of $35,759, with monthly
payments of $348. A f t e r t h e p a r t i e s p u r c h a s e d t h e home i n March
1977, t h e y borrowed $2,500 from t h e l e n d i n g agency f i n a n c i n g t h e
home f o r a down p a y m e n t , $ 5 , 0 0 0 f r o m t h e Rimrock C r e d i t U n i o n f o r
t h e p u r c h a s e o f h o u s e h o l d g o o d s and $ 6 , 0 0 0 f r o m t h e S e c u r i t y Bank
for home improvements. In addition, they also borrowed money
f r o m w i f e ' s u n c l e on two o c c a s i o n s i n a t o t a l amount of $ 7 , 0 0 0 o f
which they had paid back $750 a t the time of hearing. The
D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h e n e t e q u i t y i n t h e home s h o u l d be awarded
60 p e r c e n t t o w i f e , 40 p e r c e n t to husband b u t t h a t it would n o t
be just or e q u i t a b l e t o s e l l t h e home and d i v i d e t h e p r o c e e d s .
I n l i e u o f s a l e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found h u s b a n d ' s e q u i t y i n t h e
h o u s e t o e q u a l $ 9 , 5 7 6 . 4 0 and o r d e r e d s u c h e q u i t y m u s t be c r e d i t e d
to husband's child support obligation at the r a t e of $200 p e r
month until husband's interest in the home is satisfied. In
a d d i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d husband to pay a n a d d i t i o n a l
$ 1 0 0 p e r month per c h i l d o r $ 2 0 0 p e r month to w i f e as c h i l d sup-
p o r t . When t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e home h a s b e e n s a t i s f i e d ,
h u s b a n d is t o p a y $ 2 0 0 p e r c h i l d per month or $ 4 0 0 p e r month to
w i f e as c h i l d s u p p o r t .
The D i s t r i c t Court ordered husband to a s s u m e $ 3 , 7 0 0 o f the
marital liabilities and wife to assume $7,250 o f the marital
liabilities. Husband appeals from the District Court's order
r e q u i r i n g h u s b a n d t o p a y $ 4 0 0 a month c h i l d s u p p o r t and to c r e d i t
$ 2 0 0 o f t h e t o t a l $ 4 0 0 a g a i n s t t h e $ 9 , 5 7 6 . 4 0 e q u i t y he h a s i n t h e
f a m i l y home.
The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e as f o l l o w s :
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by
distributing the marital estate; 60 p e r c e n t to t h e w i f e and 4 0
p e r c e n t to t h e husband.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by
requiring the respondent husband to pay child support in an
amount in excess of what the facts show the ability of the
respondent to be, under all the circumstances and facts con-
cerning the financial ability of the respondent husband.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by
m a k i n g a n award o f c h i l d s u p p o r t to be p a i d o u t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t
husband's e q u i t y i n t h e m a r i t a l r e a l p r o p e r t y b a s e d upon p r e s e n t
value without consideration of the facts of appreciation or
d e p r e c i a t i o n of t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y .
Husband f i r s t a r g u e s 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 and
exceeded t h e bounds of r e a s o n b y a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e e q u i t y of the
f a m i l y home, 6 0 p e r c e n t t o w i f e , 4 0 p e r c e n t to h u s b a n d . Husband
correctly cites s e c t i o n 40-4-202(1), MCA, as t h e s t a t u t e which
g o v e r n s e q u i t a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n of property i n a d i s s o l u t i o n pro-
ceeding. T h i s C o u r t h a s many times d e c i d e d t h i s i s s u e and d o e s
n o t c h o o s e t o r e h a s h t h e same a r g u m e n t s i n t h i s case:
" I n 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 abused
its d i s c r e t i o n , the reviewing court does not
s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l
c o u r t . The s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w is w h e t h e r t h e
trial court acted arbitrarily without
employment of conscientious judgment or
exceeded t h e bounds of r e a s o n r e s u l t i n g i n
substantial injustice ." Bolich v. Bolich
(19821,
S t . R e p . 1-137;-
Mont . .. - - - , 647 P.2d 8 4 4 , 39
Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p e a r s t o h a v e f o l l o w e d t h e s t a t u t o r y
c r i t e r i a s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. Husband h a s f a i l e d to
s p e c i f i c a l l y address the i s s u e a s to a n y p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n why
t h e 60 p e r c e n t - 40 p e r c e n t s p l i t is i n e q u i t a b l e o t h e r t h a n to
simply state that it is arbitrary and exceeds the bounds of
reason. We find t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e
District Court's holding. Wife was l e f t w i t h a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
l a r g e r p o r t i o n of the marital l i a b i l i t i e s and t h a t a l o n e would
justify a disproportionate property division in t h i s case. We
affirm the District Court I s ruling on this issue.
Husband 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 a b u s e d its d i s c r e -
t i o n by r e q u i r i n g him t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t i n e x c e s s of h u s b a n d ' s
a b i l i t y to pay. S e c t i o n 40-4-204 g o v e r n s a n award o f c h i l d sup-
port. The s e c t i o n s t a t e s :
" I n a p r o c e e d i n g f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e
. . . , t h e c o u r t may o r d e r e i t h e r or b o t h
p a r e n t s owing a d u t y o f s u p p o r t to a c h i l d t o
p a y a n amount r e a s o n a b l e o r n e c e s s a r y f o r h i s
support . . ., a f t e r considering a l l relevant
f a c t o r s including :
" ( 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
parent;
"(3) t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t h e c h i l d would
h a v e e n j o y e d had the marriage not been
dissolved;
" ( 5 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s and n e e d s of t h e
noncustod i a l p a r e n t . "
Thus, t h e s e c t i o n r e q u i r e s c h i l d s u p p o r t depending on t h e f i n a n -
c i a l r e s o u r c e s of b o t h p a r e n t s , i n a n amount s u f f i c i e n t to p r o -
v i d e a s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g s i m i l a r to t h a t which t h e c h i l d would
have enjoyed had the marriage continued. Here, the District
C o u r t s i m p l y made a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e husband is a b l e t o c o n t r i -
bute $400 p e r month for child support taking into account h i s
e q u i t y i n t h e home. 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 a s
to the amount necessary to support the children, nor did the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t make a f i n d i n g a s t o t h e amount t h e w i f e is a b l e
to contribute to the children's support. We remand to the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n
40-4-204, and e n t e r judgment a c c o r d i n g l y .
Husband l a s t l y argues the D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by o r d e r i n g
h i s e q u i t y i n t h e f a m i l y home be c r e d i t e d a s c h i l d s u p p o r t a t t h e
r a t e of $200 p e r month u n t i l h i s equity is e x h a u s t e d . Husband
c l a i m s he s h o u l d be a b l e t o c o l l e c t i n t e r e s t on h i s e q u i t y o r a t
least be given some consideration in the event the property
a p p r e c i a t e s i n v a l u e b e f o r e h i s e q u i t y is s a t i s f i e d . Wife a r g u e s
t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t p r o v i d i n g f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t o u t of m a r i -
t a l assets is p e r m i s s i b l e and w i t h i n t h e power of the D i s t r i c t
Court. Wife c i t e s C r a b t r e e v. Crabtree (1982), - Mont . - I
6 5 1 P.2d 2 9 , 39 S t . R e p . 1 6 6 8 , a s a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t of h e r con-
tention. However, i n -r a b t r e e
C -- t h i s Court ruled marital assets
c o u l d be a p p l i e d t o r e t r o a c t i v e s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s due and owing a t
the t i m e of the decree. That is a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r
f r o m t h e c a s e a t hand. To s i m p l y award husband an e q u i t y i n t h e
house of $9,576.40 t o be c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t h i s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n
a t t h e r a t e of $200 a month u n t i l t h e e q u i t y h a s b e e n s a t i s f i e d
i s a r b i t r a r y and d o e s e x c e e d t h e bounds of r e a s o n . We appreciate
the District Court's concern t h a t the n e t equity i n the family
home may n o t j u s t i f y a s a l e and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t wife might
not be able to find a comparable residence with a comparable
monthly payment. However, if the District Court is going to
r e q u i r e husband t o a p p l y h i s home e q u i t y a g a i n s t h i s c h i l d sup-
port obligation, then the District Court must also credit
husband's ongoing p r i n c i p a l with i n t e r e s t computed a t a reason-
able rate.
----
Affirmed i n p a r t , r e v e r s e d &d rem3ded i n part.
I
Justice
W concur:
e
?&9'iL. -4z7
--95z94
Chief Justice