NO. 95-159
IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1995
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
MARGARETHAYES,
Petitioner and Respondent,
and
ROBERT HAYES,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Valley
The Honorable John McKeon, Judge presiding.
COUNSELOF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Robert D. Morrison, Attorney at Law,
Whitefish, Montana
For Respondent:
Matthew W. Knierim; Christoffersen & Knierim,
Glasgow, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 17, 1995
Decided: September 13, 1995
Filed:
Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Robert Hayes appeals from the January 5, 1995 Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment of the Seventeenth Judicial
District Court, Valley County. We affirm.
The following issue is raised on appeal:
Was the District Court's distribution of the marital estate
an abuse of discretion and/or not supported by substantial credible
evidence?
This is the third time this case has been before this Court on
appeal. Margaret Hayes (Margaret) and Robert Hayes (Robert) were
married on December 29, 1959. No children were born of the
marriage. A Decree of Dissolution was entered by the district
court on May 29, 1992. No written property settlement agreement
was prepared or timely filed with the decree. On appeal, Robert
argued that because the agreement was never reduced to writing, as
required by § 40-4-201, MCA, the case should be remanded for a
property distribution determination in accordance with § 40-4-201,
MCA. This Court agreed. In re Marriage of Hayes (1993), 256 Mont.
266, 846 P.2d 272 (Hayes I).
On remand, the district court entered an Amended Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law. Although this amended version
contained parts of the original transcript verbatim, it still did
not contain a written property agreement. On the second appeal,
this Court held that the district court erroneously relied upon the
oral agreement of the parties. Again, this Court reversed and
remanded, directing the district court to try the case on the
merits and dispose of the property according to the applicable
2
statutory criteria. In re Marriage of Hayes (19941, 264 Mont. 350,
871 P.2d 913 (Hayes II).
On remand after Hayes II, the District Court considered and
addressed the statutory criteria set forth in §§ 40-4-201 and -202,
MCA, in reaching an equitable distribution of the marital estate.
The standard of review employed by this Court in marital property
division cases is whether the district court's findings of fact are
clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of McLean/Fleury (1993), 257
Mont. 55, 61, 849 P.2d 1012, 1015.
In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Judgment,
the District Court addressed the age, station, health, and welfare
of the parties, as well as the sources of the marital property.
Further, the District Court identified the property that comprises
the marital estate and valued the property. Finally, the District
Court equitably divided the marital property and awarded
maintenance to Robert.
When there is substantial credible evidence to support the
court's findings and judgment, this Court will not alter the trial
court's decision unless there is an abuse of discretion. In re
Marriage of Maedje (1994), 263 Mont. 262, 266, 863 P.2d 580, 583.
In this case, the Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and
Judgment indicate that the court considered the evidence presented
by the parties. For example, the District Court stated that since
the order of March 30, 1992, Margaret has had complete management
authority over the ranch operations. The court also found that
Robert recently underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor, and
3
that although he is satisfactorily recovering from the surgery, he
will have physical limitations that may preclude him from
undertaking vigorous physical activity. Based on the age and
physical health of the parties, the court found that it would be
impractical for either of them to consider other employment and
career opportunities.
Taking all of these factors into account, the District Court
proceeded to value and to equitably divide the marital property.
To maintain a viable ranching operation, the District Court found
that the real property must remain as a single unit. One parcel,
the Miller place, is the hay base, while the remaining parcels are
the pasture base for the farm and ranch operations. Margaret has
successfully managed the ranch operations, thus, the court awarded
the ranch properties to Margaret. Since the ranch properties went
to Margaret, the court did not divide the properties, rather, the
court awarded Robert a cash distribution over time. The court
noted that this installment payment arrangement may also benefit
Robert by shielding him from potential medical creditors and
helping him to better plan for his future needs. Finding that
Robert lacks sufficient property to provide for his reasonable
needs, and is unable to support himself through appropriate
employment, the court also awarded him maintenance, pursuant to §
40-4-203, MCA.
This Court will not disturb an equitable apportionment of the
marital assets when it is clear that the district court was acting
within its discretion. In re Marriage of Danielson (19921, 253
4
Mont. 310, 319, 833 P.2d 215, 221. Here, the District Court did
not abuse its discretion, and the record indicates that the court
conscientiously considered the needs of the parties and the nature
of the marital property. There is substantial credible evidence in
the record to support the findings and judgment of the District
Court.
Affirmed.
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court
1995 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as
precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document
with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result
to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company.
We concur:
5