No. 96-622
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
KATHIE LYNN SLABODNIK,
Petitioner and Respondent,
and
GEORGE F. SLABODNIK, JR.,
Respondent and Appellant.
...............................................................
ANGELA M. SLABODNIK, individually, and as
Trustee of the ANGELA M. SLABODNIK TRUST,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
GEORGE F. SLABODNIK, a/k/a G. F. SLABODNIK,
Defendant and Appellant,
and
KATHIE LYNN SLABODNIK,
Intervenor and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District, In and for the County of
Ravalli, the Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Judge Presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Douglas G. Skjelset and John H. Gilliam, Skjelset & Gilliam, P.L.L.P.,
Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
P. Mars Scott and Robert Terrazas, Mulroney, Delaney & Scott,
Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 17, 1997
Decided: J u n e 11, 1 9 9 7
Filed:
Chief Justice J. A. Tumage delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1995 Internal
Operating Rules, the following 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 State Reporter and West Publishing Companies.
George Slabodnik and Kathie Slabodnik were divorced in 1996. George appeals from
the findings, conclusions, decree of dissolution, and award of attorney fees entered by the
Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County. We affirm.
George raises two issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err in its distribution of the marital estate?
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it awarded attorney fees?
BACKGROUND
George and Kathie were married in 1977. Two children were born of the marriage.
In 1992, Kathie petitioned for dissolution of marriage in the Fourth Judicial District Court,
Missoula County. Angela Slabodnik, George's mother, and the Angela Slabodnik Trust (the
Trust) filed a complaint against George in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli
County, seeking $346,680 for nonpayment of alleged loans. The collection action was
consolidated with the dissolution, and on motion by Angela and the Trust, venue was
changed from Missoula County to Ravalli County.
The District Court ordered George to pay Kathie $2000 per month in temporary
maintenance and child support. By the date of trial, George owed Kathie over $26,000 in
unpaid temporary child support and maintenance. George claimed that he was unable to pay,
but represented to the IRS, the Montana Department of Revenue, and financial institutions
that he owned Garfield's Cafe, Inc., and was a shareholder of GEQ, Inc. Together, the two
corporations were valued at approximately $500,000. George also represented to his bank
that he had a personal net worth exceeding $750,000.
At trial, Kathie testified about the parties' marital debt. George claimed that he
possessed documents evidencing additional marital credit card debt. However, the
documents were never introduced at trial.
The District Court entered findings of fact setting forth Kathie's liabilities incurred
during the marriage and the parties' net worth. The court concluded that the promissory
notes between George and Angela which gave rise to the collection action were
unenforceable and that Angela's intent was to make gifts to her son. The court also dissolved
the marriage, awarded custody, ordered George to pay child support, distributed property and
debts of the marital estate, and ordered George to pay Kathie's attorney fees. George
appeals.
DISCUSSION
1. Did the District Court err in its distribution of the marital estate?
We review the findings underlying a district court's division of marital property to
determine if the findings are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Stufft (1996), 276 Mont.
454,459,916 P.2d 767,770. We determine a finding is clearly erroneous by using the three-
part test set forth in Interstate Production Credit Association v. DeSaye (l991), 250 Mont.
320,323,820 P.2d 1285,1287. The DeSaye test requires a review of the record to determine
whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence; to determine whether the district
court misapprehended the evidence; and to determine whether a review of the record leaves
this Court with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Stufft, 916 P.2d at 770.
George argues that the District Court incorrectly determined the parties' net worth
because it failed to make any findings concerning their credit card debts. The record does
not support George's claim. The documents admitted into evidence at trial as Petitioner's
Exhibits 28 and 29, and noted in the District Court's findings of fact, demonstrate that the
court received and considered Kathie's outstanding credit card balances when it calculated
the parties' net worth, set forth in finding of fact 38.
The record also indicates that George did not present credible evidence of marital
credit card debt. In 1994, when George applied for a loan at Farmers State Bank in Victor,
Montana, he completed and signed a loan application describing his net worth. The
application states "unknown" on the lines where George was asked to list his liabilities,
including credit card obligations. Nor did George advise his bank about any changes in his
financial situation between 1994 and trial, despite language in the application which
provided, "The undersigned also agrees to notify the lender immediately in writing of any
significant adverse change in said financial condition." George also filled out a Montana
Child Support Guidelines Financial Affidavit in which he did not list any credit card debts.
We conclude that based on the record, the District Court considered the parties' credit
card debts and did not err when it calculated their net worth. There is sufficient evidence to
support the court's calculation of the parties' credit card debts and that evidence has not been
misapprehended; nor do we have any conviction that a mistake has been made. We hold that
the District Court's findings regarding the parties' net worth are not clearly erroneous, and
the court did not err in its distribution of the marital estate.
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it awarded attorney fees?
George argues that the District 'Court erred when it awarded Kathie her attorney fees
because the court did not determine the parties' joint credit card debt and therefore could not
properly consider the parties' financial resources.
As we held above, the District Court's findings regarding the parties' net worth are
not clearly erroneous. We conclude that the court properly considered the parties' financial
resources and did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Kathie her attorney fees.
Affirmed, with the parties responsible for their own costs and attorney fees on appeal.
We concur:
Justices /