No. 81-567
I THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
K F F OTN
1982
I N RE THE NARRIAGE OF
R N L CLYDE HECHT,
O AD
P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t ,
DOLORES ANN HECHT,
Respondent a n d Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court o f t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l District,
I n a n d f o r t h e County o f G a l l a t i n
H o n o r a b l e W. W. L e s s l e y , 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 P e t i t i o n e r :
B o l i n g e r & H i g g i n s , Bozeman, Montana
F o r Respondent :
Berg, C o i l , S t o k e s & T o l l e f s e n , Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on b r i e f s : May 27, 1982
Decided: A u g u s t 11, 1982
Y
4 Clerk
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion
of the Court.
This is an appeal by husband of the October 29, 1981,
judgment and decree of the Eighteenth Judicial District
Court distributing the property of the parties. We affirm.
Ronald and Dolores Hecht were married October 25, 1968.
They resided in Shelby, Montana, for four years before
moving to West Yellowstone. Respondent taught school in
Shelby for three years. After moving to West Yellowstone,
she assisted in the office of her husband's plumbing business.
She also operated a dog grooming business the last two years
of the marriage.
Respondent's parents financed the purchase of a lot and
building in West Yellowstone for appellant's plumbing business.
Respondent contributed $1,000 cash toward that purchase. A
later contribution from respondent enabled the parties to
borrow $20,000 to build a shop and store building on their
land. They also purchased and resided in a mobile home.
The later contribution of $4,737 came from respondent's
teachers' retirement fund and the sale of her cattle.
The parties separated in December 1979. Respondent
returned to her parents' home in Dillon. Appellant remained
in the mobile home in West Yellowstone and continued operating
the plumbing business.
A decree of dissolution dissolving the parties' mar-
riage was issued February 19, 1980. That decree stated that
the property division dispute would be subsequently heard.
It also ordered appellant to pay respondent "as maintenance
and support the sum of five hundred fifty and no/100 dollars
($550.00) per month starting on the 20th day of February,
1980, and monthly thereafter until September 20, 1980."
Respondent used those funds to return to college and rein-
state her teaching certificate. She has been unable to
obtain a teaching position and currently works as a book-
keeper in Dillon for $3.50 an hour. Appellant earns approxi-
mately $25.00 an hour. Both parties are approximately forty-
three years old.
In its findings of October 19, 1981, the District Court
determined the property of the marriage to consist of the
following:
1. Lot 5, Block 7, West Yellowstone, Montana:
Value of Land $30,000
Value of Improvements 28,000
Sss,ooo
First Mortgage
Second Mortgage
Net Equity $24,000
2. Peerless Mobile Home $12,000
3. Hecht Plumbing and
Heating Inventory,
including vehicles $12,000
4. Pontiac Automobile $ 6,000
5. Hebgen Lake Lot:
Value of Land $12,000
Balance Due on Contract
Net Equity
6. Miscellaneous Property
and Collectibles $ 3,736
Respondent was awarded the lot in West Yellowstone,
together with all improvements; the Peerless mobile home;
the Hebgen Lake lot; the Pontiac station wagon; and all
furniture and collectibles then in her possession. Due to
her "real potential of securing a teaching position," re-
spondent was awarded no maintenance.
Appellant was awarded the Hecht Plumbing and Heating
inventory; the business vehicles; and all furniture and guns
then in his possession. This apportionment left husband
with approximately one-fourth of the marital assets.
Appellant filed a motion to amend and supplement find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment on November
9, 1981. Appellant's motion was summarily denied November
19, 1981. He now appeals both the judgment and the order
denying his motion to amend.
The issues presented to us on appeal are:
(1) Did the District Court act arbitrarily and abuse
its discretion when it divided the parties' marital prop-
erty?
(2) Did the District Court err in arriving at its
findings of fact and conclusions of law by misstating the
value of the marital assets?
This appeal centers around the value of the assets
awarded each party and appellant's desire to have the prop-
erty divided equally between the parties. We grant great
deference to the District Court's resolution of property
divisions in marital dissolutions. Jerome v. Jerome (1978),
175 Mont. 429, 5 7 4 P.2d 997. The judgment of the ~istrict
Court will only be disturbed where there is a clear abuse of
discretion resulting in substantial injustice. Creon v.
Creon (1981), - Mont. -, 635 P.2d 1308, 38 St.Rep. 1828.
The District Court did not act arbitrarily. Rather,
the District Court followed the statutory guidelines for
disposition of marital property set forth in section 4 0 - 4 -
202, MCA. That section does not require equal distribution
of assets between the parties. It does require the court to
consider such things as the duration of the marriage, and
"the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources
of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, lia-
bilities, and needs of each of the parties. . ." The Dis-
trict Court did so.
The District Court noted that respondent gave up a
teaching career in Shelby when her husband established a
plumbing business in West Yellowstone. It also considered
respondent's financial and time contributions to the plumb-
ing business. Both parties' present incomes as well as
their potential future incomes were considered.
In addition, the financial values placed on the various
properties were reasonable and supported by independent
appraisal. The District Court appears to have considered
all encumbrances as well as the amount owing on the Hebgen
Lake property contract. All marital assets were valued and
a net worth, though not specifically referred to, can easily
be determined from the court's findings on asset values and
existing encumbrances. We find the apportionment, though
granting more equity to wife than to husband, to be within
the court's discretion.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: