No. 8 8 - 1 7 6
IN THE SITPREME COlJRT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1988
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
DAVID 1. PURDY,
,
Petitioner and Appell-ant,
and
MARCIA E. PURDY,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula,
The Honorable Douglas Harkin, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Michael Sol.; Sol & b?olfe, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent :
Pau1ett.e Ferguson, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 6 , 1 9 8 8
I-
Cr) L
x
0 3 Decided; November 17, 1 9 8 8
C >.'
- c
-
t-i
~ i l a : 5.
:--. . , -*
1
-
a I, I
- -
LLI
-1 $
LL
'--(
7
-
C 3
\>' *;
- ,
<{
2
-x
fi~?.p *d
,- Clerk
2 L
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The husband appeals from the property settlement and
maintenance award in this action for legal separation filed
in the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District,
Missoula County. We affirm.
The issues are:
1. Did the District Court err in failing to determine
the value of marital property?
2. Did the District Court err in its distribution of
marital property?
3. Was there error in the award of maintenance?
4. Did the District Court err in failing to determine
and assign marital debts?
The parties married in 1960. The three children of the
marriage have all reached the age of majority. The wife, who
was 49 years old at the time of the proceeding before the
District Court, has been a homemaker throughout the marriage.
Husband, 46 years of age, has worked as a salesman, most
recently in real estate. In 1981, he stopped working and
left the family home. Since 1981, the parties have supported
themselves primarily on the proceeds of their respective
parents' estates. Husband has engaged in some stock option
trading, but testified that he lost money overall in that
venture.
Both parties testified at the hearing before the Dis-
trict Court that during the marriage, they acquired antiques,
collectibles, and guns. Both received substantial
($100,000+) inheritances from their parents within the last
several years. Their assets also include five automobiles,
the family home in Florence, Montana, a rental property in
Missoula, Montana, and a home purchased by the husband in
Bellinqham, Washington.
The court awarded the wife the family home and the
Missoula rental property. It awarded the husband the home in
Bellingham, Washington. The antiques, collectibles, and guns
were divided according to the parties' temporary stipulation
entered prior to the hearing. The court awarded the 1969
Lincoln, 1974 Cadillac, and 1978 Corvette to the wife and the
1974 Jeep Wagoneer and 1974 Ford Mustang to the husband. It
also ordered the husband to pay the wife $300 per month in
maintenance until her death.
Did the District Court err in failing to determine the
value of marital property?
The husband argues that it was error for the District
Court to adopt the wife's proposed findings and conclusions
"almost verbatim" and to omit findings on whether the par-
ties' inheritances from their parents were part of the mari-
tal estate. He also contends the court erred by
distributing the antiques, collectibles, and guns accordinq
to the pre-hearing stipulation without assigning values to
the various items.
Adoption of the wife's proposed findings and conclusions
in itself is not grounds for reversal. We have stated that
it is not error for a court to adopt a party's proposed
findings and conclusions if they are sufficiently comprehen-
sive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis for the
decision and are supported by the evidence. In re Marriage
of Jacobson (Mont. 1987), 743 P.2d 1025, 1029, 44 St.Rep.
The court's treatment of the inheritances reflects the
parties' division; he kept his and she kept hers. Neither
party suggested different disposition of those amounts in the
proposed findings and conclusions.
Both parties' proposed findings and conclusions included
provisions adopting the temporary distribution of personal
property, with the exception that the husband proposed that
some disputed pistols and lamps should be awarded to him.
The wife testified at trial that she felt she should have the
pistols and lamps. According to the parties' stipulation,
all unlisted property was to go to the wife. In adopting the
stipulation, the lower court implicitly adopted that provi-
sion. We conclude that it was not necessary in this case
that the court set forth in its findings a statement of the
total value of the personal property. We hold that there is
no error in the absence of such a finding.
I1
Did the District Court err in its distribution of mari-
tal property?
The husband claims that the distribution of marital
property was inequitable, was based in part on hearsay, and
omitted consideration of his depletion or loss of inheri-
tance. In considering this issue, the lack of verifiable
information on the husband's financial situation weighs
heavily against the husband.
The lower court found that, "Husband's testimony was
characterized by incomplete and incorrect answers about his
financial affairs." In his testimony before the court, the
husband acknowledged holding certain bank accounts only in
response to specific inquiries about them. He testified that
he did not file income tax returns in 1984, 1985, 1986, or
1987, and did not offer tax returns as evidence. He did not
present any probate records or other written record of his
inheritance from his parents. He testified that he has
suffered substantial losses in stock option trading, but.
failed to present evidence summarizing his stock market
activities, although it appears that such a summary would
have been readily obtainable. The wife listed six different
names and addresses the husband has used in the past few
years. In light of all this, we conclude that the admission
of a copy of an options trading account financial data form
of the husband's, submitted by the wife, was not error. On
that form, his net worth was stated as $500,000 and his
yearly income as $65,000. Under the circumstances here
presented, we hold that the husband has not shown that the
distribution of marital property was inequitable.
Was there error in the award of maintenance?
The husband argues that the court erred in finding that
the wife could not work and that he could. He also claims
error in the amount of maintenance awarded by the court.
Section 40-4-203, MCA, governs the award of maintenance:
(1) In a proceeding for . . . legal separa-
tion . .
. the court may grant a maintenance order
for either spouse only if it finds that the spouse
seeking maintenance:
(a) lacks sufficient property to provide for
his reasonable needs; and
(b) is unable to support himself through
appropriate employment . . .
(2) The maintenance order shall be in such
amounts and for such periods of time as the court
deems just, without regard to marital misconduct,
and after considering all relevant facts including:
(a) the financial resources of the party
seeking maintenance, including marital property
apportioned to him, and his ability to meet his
needs independently ...
(b) the time necessary to acquire sufficient
education or training to enable the party seeking
maintenance to find appropriate employment;
(c) the standard of living established during
the marriage;
(dl the duration of the marriage;
(e) the age and the physical and emotional-
condition of the spouse seeking maintenance; and
(f) the ability of the spouse from whom
maintenance is sought to meet his needs while
meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance.
The court found that the husband's health is good and
that he is actively engaged in stock option trading and plans
to resume his career as a real estate agent. It found that
the wife's income from investment of her inheritance could be
expected to be $1,000 per month and that her monthly expenses
were $1,300. It further found that this income
is not enough to enable her to live at a level that
is reasonable given the standard of living estab-
lished during the marriage. Her medical problems
preclude employment. After many years of marriage,
Wife is unable to work while Husband is actively
engaging in stock option trading and plans to
resume his formerly successful career as a real
estate agent.
Evidence supporting the court's maintenance award included
the testimony that the husband had vrorked outside the home
throughout the parties' marriage and up until the last few
years and the wife had not. Also, the wife suffers from
systemic lupus erythematosus, which she testified affects the
mobility of her joints. The wife testified that the husband
had told her that he expected to be working within 6 months.
The husband testified that he planned on taking the real
estate examination in Washington. The wife testified that
her monthly expenses were $919. This did not include cloth--
ing expenses and a yearly mortgage payment of $2,500. Fe 7
conclude that the District Court has addressed the elements
necessary under S 40-4-203, MCA, and that the maintenance
award is not clearly erroneous.
IV
Did the District Court err in failing to determine and
assign marital debts?
Neither party submitted any proposed findings or conclu-
sions on the marital debts which the husband now states were
not addressed. The husband did testify that there was ap-
proximately $3,000 on the Mastercard bill and approximately
$300 on the Conoco bill. He did not offer copies of state-
ments from either creditor to support those claims, nor did
he offer any evidence in support of his claim that the wife
had incurred the bil-1s. In view of the absence of support in
the record for these claims, we conclude that the District
Court was not required to make findings or conclusions on
them.
Affirmed.