No. 81-104
I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
H F F OTN
1981
I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF
MARGARET K. HUNTER,
P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent,
and
L O A D R.
E N R HUNTER,
Respondent and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f S i l v e r Bow
Honorable Arnold O l s e n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
K n i g h t , Dahood, McLean and E v e r e t t , Anaconda, Montana
F o r Respondent:
C o r e t t e , S m i t h , Pohlman and A l l e n , B u t t e , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : October 2 2 , 1981
Decided: J a n u a r y 1 4 , 1982
Mr.J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court .
Leonard R. H u n t e r a p p e a l s from t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t
p r o v i s i o n s of a d i v o r c e d e c r e e e n t e r e d i n t h e Second J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t , S i l v e r Bow County.
The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r
review:
1) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g a s
p a r t of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e t h e sum o f $51,000 which was
d e p o s i t e d by t h e husband i n a c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t i n h i s name
d u r i n g t h e 1 8 months p r e c e d i n g t r i a l , and expended by him
prior to trial.
2) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g and
d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e m a r i t a l property without f i r s t determining
t h e n e t worth o f t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e t i m e of t h e divorce.
The husband, i n h i s b r i e f , r a i s e s a s c a t t e r i n g o f o t h e r
c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e e q u it a b i l i t y of t h e v a l u a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n
of t h e p r o p e r t y , which w e w i l l c o n s i d e r i n t h e i r t u r n .
W e a f f i r m i n p a r t and r e v e r s e i n p a r t .
M a r g a r e t and Leonard Hunter w e r e m a r r i e d i n 1954. They
have t h r e e s o n s , a l l o f whom h a v e r e a c h e d t h e i r m a j o r i t y .
I n t h e twenty-six y e a r s of t h e i r marriage, t h e p a r t i e s have
amassed a c o n s i d e r a b l e e s t a t e , p r i m a r i l y c o m p r i s i n g r e a l
e s t a t e i n and a r o u n d t h e C i t y o f B u t t e . The p r o p e r t y v a r i e s
widely i n p e r c e i v e d v a l u e according t o i t s development
p o t e n t i a l , a n d o t h e r f a c t o r s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e a p p r a i s i n g
party .
I n t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e , t h e husband
worked a t m i n i n g and l a y i n g l i n o l e u m . S i n c e 1978, he has
b e e n l i m i t e d by h i s h e a l t h t o l a n d c o n t r a c t i n g and d e v e l o p i n g .
is w i f e a g r e e s t h a t h e w a s " a n a g g r e s s i v e worker and a good
provider." H i s w i f e l e f t h e r work a s a t e l e p h o n e o p e r a t o r
upon t h e i r m a r r i a g e and d e v o t e d h e r s e l f t o r a i s i n g t h e i r
t h r e e sons. She was r e h i r e d by Mountain B e l l i n 1968, and
worked j u s t o v e r e i g h t y e a r s , when a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s u l t e d
i n her being l a i d o f f r a t h e r than r e t r a i n e d . She c o l l e c t e d
unemployment f o r a t i m e , b u t h a s n o t r e t u r n e d t o work b e c a u s e
o f h e r h e a l t h and h e r l i m i t e d q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .
I n September o f 1978, t h e w i f e p e t i t i o n e d f o r d i s s o l u t i o n
of her marriage. The s e p a r a t i o n was a c r i m o n i o u s , and t h e
p a r t i e s w e r e unable t o reach a mutually acceptable property
settlement. On September 2 6 , 1978, t h e d a y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r
d i s s o l u t i o n was f i l e d , and a g a i n on J u l y 31, 1979, t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e husband t o r e f r a i n from " t r a n s f e r r i n g ,
encumbering, c o n c e a l i n g o r o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s i n g o f any p r o p e r t y
e x c e p t i n t h e u s u a l c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s o r i n t h e n e c e s s i t i e s
of l i f e . " The h u s b a n d ' s own t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l e d t h a t h e
t h e r e a f t e r s o l d 100 s h a r e s of P a b s t Blue Ribbon s t o c k and
s p e n t t h e proceeds. The w i f e produced bank r e c o r d s t o show
t h a t h e d e p o s i t e d o v e r $51,000 i n t o a c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t w i t h
t h e F i r s t M e t a l s Bank & T r u s t Co. of B u t t e , i n t h e name of
Leonard H u n t e r , and withdrew a l l b u t a few d o l l a r s , i n t h e
t i m e between t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e d i s s o l u t i o n .
A h e a r i n g was h e l d on March 20, 1980, a t which t i m e t h e
w i f e ' s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n was g r a n t e d . A t that t i m e
and a t a s u b s e q u e n t h e a r i n g h e l d J u n e 1 9 , 1980, t h e ~ i s t r i c t
C o u r t h e a r d e x t e n s i v e t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e amount and
v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s . The f i n d i n g s of
f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and judgment w e r e e n t e r e d , w i t h
r e g a r d t o t h e d i s s o l u t i o n , on J u l y 1 0 , 1980, a n d , w i t h
r e g a r d t o t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n , on J u l y 1 7 , 1980. he
~ i s t r i c C o u r t i n i t s amended d e c r e e of d i s t r i b u t i o n , f i l e d
t
October 6, 1980, awarded t h e husband r e a l p r o p e r t y and
o t h e r m a r i t a l a s s e t s amounting t o $203,236.00. The award t o
t h e w i f e amounted t o o n l y $178,200.00, b u t t h e award t o h e r
i s f r e e and c l e a r of a l l l i e n s and encumbrances. In addition,
i n o r d e r " t o e s t a b l i s h a more e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n , " t h e
husband i s o b l i g a t e d t o pay t h e w i f e $9,000, a t $900 a n n u a l l y ,
o v e r a t e n y e a r p e r i o d , and a l l of h i s r e a l p r o p e r t y i s
mortgaged t o s e c u r e t h i s o b l i g a t i o n . N maintenance award
o
was made t o t h e w i f e , d e s p i t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t
s h e i s n o t q u a l i f i e d f o r employment. The h u s b a n d ' s motion
t o amend t h e judgment w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n
was g r a n t e d o n l y i n i t s s m a l l e s t p a r t i c u l a r s and t h e husband
appeals t o t h i s Court.
I.
The husband a r g u e s t h a t Montana c a s e law mandates
r e v e r s a l because t h e D i s t r i c t Court included i n t h e m a r i t a l
e s t a t e t h e $51,000 t h e husband had d e p o s i t e d i n t h e B u t t e
bank o v e r an e i g h t e e n month p e r i o d s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e w i f e ' s
petition f o r dissolution. What i s more, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
"awarded" t h e e n t i r e amount t o t h e husband, a l t h o u g h a t t h e
t i m e of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n , t h e money was no l o n g e r p a r t of t h e
e s t a t e , and t h e husband c l a i m e d t o have s p e n t i t on b u s i n e s s
m a t t e r s and f o r h i s own maintenance. The husband r e l i e s
upon I n r e M a r r i a g e of L i p p e r t ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -Mont. , 627
P.2d 1206, 38 St.Rep. 625, wherein t h i s C o u r t o v e r t u r n e d t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s p o s i t i o n of m a r i t a l e s t a t e b e c a u s e t h a t
c o u r t i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e $96,000 which t h e
husband had a l l e g e d l y squandered on a n unwise b u s i n e s s
investment. A p p e l l a n t now a r g u e s t h a t we a r e bound by
L i p p e r t , wherein w e s t a t e d t h a t (1) t h e worth of t h e m a r i t a l
e s t a t e must be determined a t o r near t h e time of d i s s o l u t i o n ,
and ( 2 ) t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t may n e v e r award more t h a n 1 0 0 % o f
C
t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e , a n d ( 3 ) t h e power o f a s p o u s e t o f r e e l y
c o n t r a c t with o t h e r s regarding m a r i t a l property endures
u n t i l l a w f u l l y moderated o r terminated.
W e would remind a p p e l l a n t t h a t , i n t h e c a s e a t b a r , the
~ i s t r i c t o u r t - m o d e r a t e t h a t above-mentioned s p o u s a l
C did
power, on September 26, 1978, t h e d a y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r
d i s s o l u t i o n was f i l e d , by e n j o i n i n g t h e husband from " t r a n s f e r r i n g ,
encumbering, c o n c e a l i n g o r o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s i n g o f a n y p r o p e r t y ,
e x c e p t i n t h e u s u a l c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s o r i n t h e n e c e s s i t i e s
of l i f e . " The o b v i o u s p u r p o s e of t h e o r d e r was t o p r e v e n t
t h e husband, who c o n t r o l l e d t h e r e i n s a n d r e c o r d s o f t h e
f a m i l y b u s i n e s s , from d i s s i p a t i n g o r s e c r e t i n g m a r i t a l
a s s e t s i n what p r o m i s e d t o be a p r o l o n g e d and b i t t e r d i s p u t e
over d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h o s e a s s e t s . Therefore, i n t h i s case,
a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from L i p p e r t , t h e husband's r i g h t t o dispose
o f j o i n t l y owned p r o p e r t y had been s h a r p l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d .
W e would a l s o p o i n t o u t t o a p p e l l a n t t h a t nowhere i n L i p p e r t
d i d t h i s Court d e c l a r e t h a t t h e t i m e of determining m a r i t a l
e s t a t e must be t h e d a t e of d i s s o l u t i o n . I n f a c t , we stated
t h a t no s i n g l e e v e n t i n t h e d i s s o l u t i o n p r o c e s s n e c e s s a r i l y
e s t a b l i s h e s t h e t i m e f o r proper v a l u a t i o n , whether it b e t h e
d a t e o f f i l i n g , t h e d a t e of t r i a l o r t h e d a t e o f t h e d i s s o l u -
tion itself. I n re Marriage of L i p p e r t , Mont. a t
, 627 P.2d a t 1208, 38 S t . R e p . a t 628. Clearly, although
t h e d a t e o f f i l i n g i s n o t d e t e r m i n a t i v e o f t h e t i m e of
v a l u a t i o n , n e i t h e r i s i t a u t o m a t i c a l l y beyond c o n s i d e r a t i o n
a s t o o remote. W e h a v e s t a t e d many t i m e s t h a t , i n considering
a p p e a l s a r i s i n g from d i s p o s i t i o n o f m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y upon
d i s s o l u t i o n , w e w i l l consider each c a s e i n l i g h t of t h e
f a c t s unique t o i t . I n r e Marriage of Aanenson ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
Mont. 598 P.2d 1120, 36 St.Rep. 1525. Here, b e f o r e
t h e t r a n s f e r of $51,000 i n and o u t of t h e h u s b a n d ' s a c c o u n t ,
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i n i t s September 26, 1978, i n j u n c t i o n
s e r v e d t h e husband w i t h f a i r warning t h a t he must be r e s p o n s i b l e
f o r the disputed property i n h i s control. N s u c h warning
o
was g i v e n i n L i p p e r t ; i n d e e d , i n t h a t c a s e , a l l t r a n s f e r s t o
t h e h u s b a n d ' s a c c o u n t s from s h a r e d p r o p e r t y were completed
b e f o r e t h e p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n was f i l e d . In Lippert,
t h i s C o u r t found t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e f u n d s had
d i s a p p e a r e d i n any way b u t t h r o u g h bad i n v e s t m e n t s , and
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 h a t t h e y were t h u s d i s s i p a t e d .
Here, t h e w i f e s u b m i t t e d abundant e v i d e n c e i n t h e form of
bank s t a t e m e n t s showing t h e d e p o s i t and w i t h d r a w a l of s u b s t a n t i a l
sums of money, a l t h o u g h t h e husband a d m i t t e d l y was d o i n g no
work o t h e r t h a n c o l l e c t i n g r e n t and swapping r e a l e s t a t e
during the period i n question. That r e a l e s t a t e , according
t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s own t e s t i m o n y , was i n t h e name of b o t h
parties. The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t he would o b t a i n h i s
w i f e ' s s i g n a t u r e , s e l l t h e p r o p e r t y , and bank t h e money i n
h i s personal account, a l l during t h e t i m e t h a t the injunction
was i n f o r c e . F u r t h e r m o r e , a l t h o u g h t h e husband t e s t i f i e d
t h a t t h e money was s p e n t p r i m a r i l y on b u s i n e s s , and l i v i n g
e x p e n s e s , he produced no c a n c e l l e d c h e c k s , no r e c e i p t s , no
e v i d e n c e whatsoever t o s u p p o r t h i s c l a i m , e x c e p t a l i s t of
e x p e n s e s h e h i m s e l f had drawn up. H e admitted t o paying h i s
w i f e no maintenance, a l t h o u g h he d i d pay some u t i l i t y b i l l s ,
and o c c a s i o n a l l y s i g n e d some s m a l l c h e c k s o v e r t o h e r d u r i n g
the separation period p r i o r t o the dissolution. When q u e s t i o n e d
by t h e w i f e ' s c o u n s e l a s t o t h e o r i g i n and d i s p o s i t i o n of
t h e $51,000, h i s r e s p o n s e s were e v a s i v e i n t h e extreme. An
example f o l l o w s :
"A. . . . ' 7 8 was t h e l a s t t i m e I was d o i n g any
work . .. September of ' 7 8 . . . I made some
work h e r e and t h e r e . But i t was t h e l a s t t i m e
I d i d any p h y s i c a l , manual l a b o r . . .
"Q. How much money have you d e p o s i t e d i n t h a t
a c c o u n t [ w i t h t h e F i r s t Metals Bank] s i n c e
September of 1978, t h e l a s t t i m e you had any
work?
"A. I d o n ' t know.
"Q. How a b o u t $51,175?
"A. That I deposited i n there?
"Q. Yes.
"A. I f I d e p o s i t e d i n t h e r e -- a l o t of s t u f f
I would buy f o r p e o p l e . Some of it i s mine.
"Q. W e l l , i f t h e bank s t a t e m e n t s show t h a t ,
i n September of ' 7 8 t o F e b r u a r y of ' 8 0 , y o u ' v e
r u n t h r o u g h t h a t a c c o u n t , made d e p o s i t s i n it
o f $51,175 --
"A. A l o t o f i t I t o o k o u t of t h e bank, p u t i n
m y a c c o u n t t o pay b i l l s w i t h .
"Q. B i l l s t o h e l p your wife?
"A. To pay f o r m p r o p e r t y ; pay m t a x e s , t h i n g s
y y
like that.
"Q. Where d i d you g e t t h e $51,000 t o d e p o s i t
i n t h e a c c o u n t i f you d i d n ' t h a v e a job?
"A. I t a l l shows i n t h e r e . I had d i f f e r e n t
things.
"Q. How much money do you have?
"A. You know w h a t , I d o n ' t know.
"Q. You've g o t a l o t o f money, d o n ' t you?
"A. No. J u s t what i s t h e r e , what i s i n t h e
escrow. E v e r y t h i n g i s i n mine and M a r g a r e t ' s
name.
"Q. M r . Hunter, t h i s account t h a t I ' v e r e f e r r e d
t o i s a n a c c o u n t i n y o u r own name?
"A. C a l l t h e bank and M a r g a r e t Hunter c a n s i g n
c h e c k s on it.
"Q. Did you e v e r t e l l your w i f e t o w r i t e c h e c k s
on t h i s a c c o u n t ?
"A. No. I had a checking a c c o u n t f o r h e r a t
t h e S e c u r i t y s o w e d i d n ' t g e t it mixed up.
"Q. Have you made any money on i n v e s t m e n t s
where it d i d n ' t r e q u i r e you t o work?
"THE COURT: During what p e r i o d of t i m e ?
"Q. From September of '78 u n t i l now.
"A. No. I l o s t money, I had money come t o m e
b e f o r e t h a t I made. I drew i t o u t of t h e bank.
I paid b i l l s with i t . "
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. I V s t a t e s :
"The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t d u r i n g t h e pendency of
t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d a c t i o n , Leonard Hunter d e p o s i -
t e d i n a c c o u n t s a t t h e F i r s t M e t a l s Bank & T r u s t
Company a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i f t y - o n e t h o u s a n d ( $ 5 1 , 0 0 0 ) ,
which w a s r e c e i v e d from v a r i o u s s a l e s o f p r o p e r t y
and from o t h e r u n i d e n t i f i e d s o u r c e s . Respondent's
E x h i b i t ' F ' shows t h a t many of t h e i t e m s of money
r e c e i v e d and s p e n t were from t h e s a l e of p r o p e r t i e s
owned by t h e p a r t i e s and n o t a c c o u n t e d f o r t o
M a r g a r e t Hunter. "
t h e b a s i s of t h a t f i n d i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t found t h e
$51,000 t o be a m a r i t a l a s s e t and awarded t h e a s s e t t o t h e
husband. The husband now c o n t e n d s t h a t such a n award i s
reversible error.
W disagree.
e The p u r p o s e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n
i s s u i n g i t s i n j u n c t i o n d a t e d September 2 6 , 1978, was o b v i o u s l y
t o protect the marital estate. Its conclusion t h a t t h e
husband d e p o s i t e d i n a p e r s o n a l a c c o u n t a l a r g e sum of
money o b t a i n e d by h i s making i n c u r s i o n s i n t o t h a t e s t a t e i s
s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , much of i t s u p p l i e d by
t h e h u s b a n d ' s t e s t i m o n y and i n h i s E x h i b i t " F . " The husband
was g i v e n e v e r y o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t
of h i s b a l d s t a t e m e n t s t h a t t h e money w a s s p e n t on b u s i n e s s
o r i n m a i n t a i n i n g h i m s e l f and h i s w i f e . No such e v i d e n c e
w a s presented. C l e a r l y , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was unpersuaded
by t h e h u s b a n d ' s c l a i m t h a t h i s p e r s o n a l a c c u m u l a t i o n and
d i s p o s i t i o n o f $51,000 was a b l a m e l e s s series of b u s i n e s s
transactions. That c o u r t ' s s k e p t i c i s m a p p e a r s well-founded
i n l i g h t of t h e h u s b a n d ' s own t e s t i m o n y t h a t b e f o r e t h e
d i s t r i b u t i o n h e s o l d $1,000 w o r t h of P a b s t s t o c k i n d e f i a n c e
o f t h e c o u r t ' s i n j u n c t i o n , and p r o o f t h a t s u b s e q u e n t t o
t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n h e a p p r o p r i a t e d t h e $5,000 r e a l e s t a t e
c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e D e n n i s e s , which had been awarded t o h i s
wife. W e a f f i r m o u r s t a t e m e n t i n L i p p e r t , t h a t f i n d i n g s and
c o n c l u s i o n s may n o t r e l y s o l e l y on a p e r c e i v e d l a c k of
c r e d i b i l i t y , b u t must b e s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e . Here, we
f i n d ample e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
The s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w of p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n on
d i s s o l u t i o n i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana:
"A d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s f a r - r e a c h i n g d i s c r e t i o n
i n r e s o l v i n g p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n s and i t s judg-
ment w i l l n o t b e a l t e r e d u n l e s s a c l e a r a b u s e
o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i s shown. The c r i t e r i a f o r
reviewing t h e D i s t r i c t Court's d i s c r e t i o n is:
Did t h e c o u r t i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i t s d i s c r e t i o n
a c t a r b i t r a r i l y w i t h o u t employment o f con-
s c i e n t i o u s judgment, o r exceed t h e bounds o f
r e a s o n i n view o f a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . "
S t r a t f o r d v. S t r a t f o r d (1981), Mont. I
631 P.2d 296, 298, 3 8 St.Rep. 1093, 1095; I n
re M a r r i a g e o f Aanenson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. I
598 P.2d 1120, 36 St.Rep. 1525; I n r e M a r r i a g e
of Kramer ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 61, 580 P.2d 439;
Z e l l v . Z e l l ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 216, 570 P.2d
33.
A r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , f a r from a c t i n g
a r b i t r a r i l y o r unreasonably, t h e D i s t r i c t Court acted c a r e f u l l y
and c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y t o p r o t e c t t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e i n i t i a l l y ,
and t o e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n it s u b s e q u e n t t o d i s s o l u t i o n .
T h a t t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e v a l u e of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e
p r i o r t o d i s s o l u t i o n i s n o t e r r o r i n l i g h t of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
of t h i s c a s e . W e f i n d no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t ' s i n c l u s i o n of t h e $51,000 i n t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e ; n o r
do w e f i n d a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e c o u r t ' s award of
t h a t s m t o t h e husband.
u
The husband a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o
d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t worth of t h e e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t e s r e v e r s i b l e
e r r o r , r e q u i r i n g remand f o r r e t r i a l . He b a s e s h i s argument
upon t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o make an e x p l i c i t f i n d i n g
t o t a l l i n g a l l of t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and e x p r e s s l y a l l o c a t i n g
the liabilities.
The w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e i s s e t f o r t h c l e a r l y i n
S c h u l t z v. S c h u l t z ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 613 P.2d 1022,
" T h i s C o u r t h a s , s i n c e 1975 when t h e M a r r i a g e
and Divorce Act was p a s s e d , c o n s i d e r e d many
cases with regard t o proper property d i v i s i o n
i n d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e c a s e s . W have
e
adopted c e r t a i n g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e e q u i t a b l e
d i s t r i b u t i o n a s mandated under s e c t i o n 40-4-
202, MCA.
" S e v e r a l c r i t e r i a s t a n d o u t a s mandates, f i r s t
of which i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t make f i n d -
i n g s of f a c t from which t h e r e c a n b e e s t a b l i s h -
ed a n e t worth of t h e p a r t i e s . (Citations
omitted).
"The above c a s e s g e n e r a l l y h o l d t h a t t h e r e must
be complete f i n d i n g s as t o t h e a s s e t s and
l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r v a l u e s
f o r e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a n e t worth. This Court
has allowed a f a i l u r e t o f i n d a n e t worth t o
s t a n d o n l y where t h e r e h a s been a 50/50 s p l i t
of t h e p r o p e r t y . (Citations omitted).''
In the case a t bar, the D i s t r i c t Court's f a i l u r e t o
s t a t e t h e d o l l a r v a l u e of t h e t o t a l e s t a t e i s p u r e l y a
t e c h n i c a l omission. E x h i b i t s "A" and "B" a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d
i n t o f i n d i n g of f a c t number I , which s t a t e s :
"The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t a l l of t h e p r o p e r t y
d e s c r i b e d i n E x h i b i t s ' A ' and ' B ' a t t a c h e d
h e r e t o and by r e f e r e n c e made a p a r t h e r e o f ,
w e r e a c q u i r e d by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e i r
m a r r i a g e and a r e p a r t and p a r c e l of t h e
m a r i t a l a s s e t s of t h e p a r t i e s . "
Those e x h i b i t s c o n s t i t u t e a p a i n s t a k i n g l y c o m p l e t e and
c a r e f u l l i s t of t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s , a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i r
v a l u e , and a t o t a l of t h e amount awarded t o e a c h of t h e
parties. I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e p u r p o s e of t h e c o u r t was t o
divide the assets a s equally a s possible. The v a l u e s a s s i g n e d
t h e v a r i o u s i t e m s of r e a l e s t a t e and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a r e
s u p p o r t e d by e v a l u a t i o n s of t h e i r w o r t h o f f e r e d by q u a l i f i e d
a p p r a i s e r s o r by t h e p a r t i e s t h e m s e l v e s . The t r a n s c r i p t
r e v e a l s t h a t , c o n t r a r y t o t h e h u s b a n d ' s c l a i m , t h e v a l u e of
a g r e a t many of t h e i t e m s was d e t e r m i n e d by h i s own t e s t i m o n y .
I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e views of husband and w i f e d i v e r g e d
sharply a s t o t h e value of c e r t a i n r e a l property, largely
b e c a u s e one viewed t h e p r o p e r t y a s raw l a n d and t h e o t h e r
weighed i t s development p o t e n t i a l . Developers and a p p r a i s e r s
themselves disagreed i n t h e i r v a l u a t i o n s .
"The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a s t h e t r i e r of f a c t , i n
t h i s t r i a l without a jury, has t h e d i s c r e t i o n
t o g i v e whatever w e i g h t i t sees f i t t o t h e
t e s t i m o n y of l a n d a p p a i s e r w i t n e s s e s . Dicker-
son v. Dickerson ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont., 614 P.2d 521,
37 St.Rep. 1286. U n l e s s t h e v a l u a t i o n i s
c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , i t s h a l l n o t be r e v e r s e d
on a p p e a l . Rule 52 ( a ) M.R.Civ.P." I n re
M a r r i a g e of J e n s e n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. ,
631 P.2d 700, 702, 38 St.Rep. 1 1 0 9 , 1111.
Viewing t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l -
i n g p a r t y , w e f i n d t h a t t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e b e f o r e
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o s u p p o r t t h e v a l u e i t found a p p l i c a b l e
t o t h o s e d i s p u t e d l o t s and a c r e s , I t s v a l u a t i o n was n o t
c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s : i t was based upon s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e
and w i l l n o t b e o v e r t u r n e d . See Cameron v. Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
179 Mont. 219, 227-228, 587 P.2d 939, 9 4 5 .
L i k e w i s e , t h e r e i s ample e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t
Court c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e l i a b i l i t i e s of t h e e s t a t e ,
and, w h i l e n o t g i v i n g them an e x p l i c i t d o l l a r v a l u e , e q u i t a b l y
d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d be b o r n e by t h e husband. On
d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e husband w a s a s k e d whether t h e d e b t s
l i s t e d on h i s E x h i b i t "H" were h i s o b l i g a t i o n :
"A. Well, I p l a n on p a y i n g them.
"Q. A l l right. Are t h e y your r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ?
"A. Yes."
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u b t r a c t e d t h e d e b t s from t h e p r o p e r t y
t o which t h e y a t t a c h e d , when p o s s i b l e . For example, t h e
1979 C a d i l l a c v a l u e d by t h e husband a t $12,000 ( w i t h $6,000
owing) and awarded t o him w a s v a l u e d a t o n l y $6,000 by t h e
court.
The c o u r t c l e a r l y i n t e n d e d t h a t t h e husband pay t h e
debts. H i s p r o p e r t y award was g r e a t e r t h a n t h e w i f e ' s and
t h e c o u r t d i d n o t award h e r maintenance. Furthermore, i n
i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s t h e d e c r e e c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h a t
t h e p r o p e r t y i n E x h i b i t "A" was t o go t o M a r g a r e t Hunter
f r e e and c l e a r of a l l l i e n s and encumbrances. The p r o p e r t y
i n E x h i b i t "B" was t o go t o Leonard H u n t e r ; t h e r e i s no
c l a u s e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h i s award i s n o t s u b j e c t t o c r e d i t o r s '
claims.
I n I n r e M a r r i a g e of X e t c a l f (1979), Mont . , 598
P.2d 1 1 4 0 , 3 6 St.Rep. 1559, t h i s C o u r t found t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o c o n s i d e r t h e u n s e c u r e d d e b t s of t h e
m a r i t a l e s t a t e was a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . I n t h a t case,
however, t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e
d e b t s a t a l l , and i f t h e husband had r e c e i v e d t h e burden of
t h e i r payment, t o t a l l i a b i l i t i e s from t h e e s t a t e would have
exceeded h i s s h a r e of t h e a s s e t s . Here, t h e r e i s c o n v i n c i n g
evidence t h a t t h e c o u r t c a r e f u l l y considered t h e d e b t s ,
i n c o r p o r a t e d them i n t o i t s v a l u a t i o n of m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y
when p o s s i b l e , and d e c i d e d t h a t t h e i r payment s h o u l d b e t h e
husband's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . There i s no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n
by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and no u n r e a s o n a b l e burden p l a c e d on
t h e husband, whose s h a r e of t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e amounts t o
o v e r $200,000.
T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t of t h e
f i n d i n g s can be e q u i v a l e n t t o a f i n d i n g of n e t worth when
r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s a r e c o n s i d e r e d and a d e q u a t e l y s e t f o r t h by
the t r i a l court. I n r e M a r r i a g e of Bosacker ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,
Mont. , 609 P.2d 253, 256, 37 St.Rep. 469, 471. The
record c l e a r l y indicates t h a t t h e t r i a l court assessed t h e
v a l u e of t h e t o t a l m a r i t a l e s t a t e , i n c l u d i n g t h e d e b t s
t h e r e o f , and d i d i t s b e s t t o e q u i t a b l y a p p o r t i o n t h e a s s e t s
between t h e p a r t i e s . W f i n d no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e
e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t , under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s e t f o r t h above, i n
i t s f a i l u r e t o s t a t e n e t worth and d e b t s a t e x a c t d o l l a r
value.
111.
W e t u r n now t o t h e s e v e r a l o t h e r a l l e g a t i o n s of e r r o r
r a i s e d by t h e husband on a p p e a l .
The husband c l a i m s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t u n f a i r l y
awarded t h e w i f e b o t h t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e and " t h e Duffy
p l a c e " where he had s t a y e d s i n c e t h e s e p a r a t i o n . W point
e
o u t t h a t i n i t s amended d e c r e e d a t e d October 6, 1980, t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded " t h e Duffy p l a c e " r e s i d e n c e t o t h e
husband.
The husband a l s o c l a i m s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e l i e d
upon t h e proposed f i n d i n g s s u b m i t t e d by t h e w i f e and c i t e s
Tomaskie v . Tomaskie ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. , 625 P.2d 536,
539, 38 St.Rep. 416, 419, a s d e c l a r i n g c a t e g o r i c a l l y , " T h a t
i s wrong!" What i s wrong, and it i s c o n s i d e r e d a n e t h i c a l
more t h a n a l e g a l b r e a c h i n Tomaskie, i s n o t f o r a t r i a l
judge t o r e l y upon proposed f i n d i n g s , b u t f o r him t o r e l y
t o o h e a v i l y on them, t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of
t h e f a c t s and t h e e x e r c i s e of h i s own judgment. T h e r e i s no
m e r i t i n t h e husband's a l l e g a t i o n . I n Tomaskie, t h e r e v e r s a l
t u r n e d upon t h e g r o s s l y i n a d e q u a t e f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i a l
court, Here, t h e f i n d i n g s a r e e x t e n s i v e , d e t a i l e d and
comprehensive. Many of them r e f l e c t t h e h u s b a n d ' s t e s t i m o n y
a s t o t h e v a l u e of s p e c i f i c p r o p e r t y and f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g
t h e m a r r i a g e and t h e d i s s o l u t i o n . Every page of t h e f i n d i n g s
r e f l e c t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d and t h e a r e a s
of dispute. T h e r e i s no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n h e r e .
The husband a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n
f i n d i n g t h a t t h e w i f e was n o t q u a l i f i e d f o r employment
b e c a u s e s h e was working as l a t e a s 1978, and p r e s e n t e d no
m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e of i n c a p a c i t y . W point out t h a t the wife
e
t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e s u f f e r e d from h i g h blood p r e s s u r e and a
bad back and l e g , and f e l t t h a t h e r h e a l t h p r e v e n t e d h e r
from r e t u r n i n g t o work. I t was w e l l w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n
of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o f i n d t h e w i f e ' s t e s t i m o n y had
s u f f i c i e n t w e i g h t t o s u p p o r t i t s f i n d i n g t h a t s h e was n o t
q u a l i f i e d t o work.
The husband d i d n o t a r g u e on a p p e a l , as h e d i d s u b s e q u e n t
t o t h e d e c r e e , t h a t t h e a t t a c h m e n t of a mortgage t o a l l o f
h i s p r o p e r t y , f o r t h e p u r p o s e of s e c u r i n g h i s $9,000 o b l i g a -
t i o n t o h i s w i f e , was i n e q u i t a b l e . He d i d , however, remark
t h a t t h e husband s h o u l d l e a v e t h e m a r r i a g e " w i t h a f a i r
d e g r e e of d i g n i t y . " A s a c o u r t of e q u i t y , we must c o n s i d e r
t h e e f f e c t upon t h e husband of mortgaging a s s e t s worth many
t i m e s t h e amount of h i s o b l i g a t i o n . The husband i s i n t h e
b u s i n e s s of t r a d i n g r e a l e s t a t e . To f r e e z e h i s a s s e t s f o r
t e n y e a r s would d e p r i v e him of h i s o c c u p a t i o n and h i s income.
T h a t i s u n r e a s o n a b l e and i n e q u i t a b l e . I t would be f a r more
r e a s o n a b l e t o mortgage o n l y one o r two i t e m s of p r o p e r t y
h a v i n g s u f f i c i e n t v a l u e t o s e c u r e t h e o b l i g a t i o n ; f o r example
No. 7 of E x h i b i t "B" of t h e amended d e c r e e , h a l f - i n t e r e s t in
a d u p l e x , v a l u e d a t $22,500.00, c o u l d be mortgaged.
The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d i n a l l
r e s p e c t s e x c e p t t h a t l a s t mentioned. W e remand t h i s c a s e t o
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h o r d e r s t o amend t h e d e c r e e s o a s t o
r e t a i n a mortgage on o n l y s o much of t h e h u s b a n d ' s p r o p e r t y
a s i s n e c e s s a r y t o s e c u r e t h e payment of $9,000 t o t h e w i f e .
W Concur:
e
r"
4
Ud-.zz.
4
.7
In Re the Marriage of Hunter
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Date filed: 1982-01-14
Citations: 639 P.2d 489, 196 Mont. 235
Copy CitationsCombined Opinion