No. 14805
I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
I ARTINA GOHNER,
Petitioner and Respondent,
-vs-
EMANUEL GOHNER ,
1
Respondent and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
Counsel of Record:
Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding.
I
For Appellant:
J. F. Meglen and Charles A. Murray, Jr., Billings, Montana
~ For Respondent :
Berger, Anderson, Sinclair and Murphy, Billings, Montana
I
Submitted on briefs: September 12, 1979
Decided: AFR 1- 1 s
-.
Filed: E r - - ?--:bJ
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
The husband, Emmanuel Gohner, a p p e a l s from a judgment o f
t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e a s s e t s
of t h e m a r r i a g e as a r e s u l t o f a d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g e .
A t t r i a l , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t it would d i v i d e t h e a s s e t s
e v e n l y between t h e p a r t i e s , and t h e c o u r t ' s f i r s t c o n c l u s i o n o f
law s t a t e s : " t h e p r o p e r t y accumulated by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g
t h e m a r r i a g e s h o u l d be s p l i t on a 50-50 b a s i s . " But t h e p r o p e r t y
was n o t s p l i t on a 50-50 b a s i s . Furthermore, t h e r e a r e v i r t u a l l y
no f i n d i n g s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s t r i b u t i o n p l a n ,
and t h u s we a r e u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e how it a r r i v e d a t i t s con-
clusions. W e note i n t h i s r e s p e c t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t adopted
v e r b a t i m , t h e proposed f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s s u b m i t t e d t o
t h e c o u r t by c o u n s e l f o r t h e w i f e . These f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s
d i d n o t adhere t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o s p l i t t h e
p r o p e r t y on a 50-50 b a s i s .
The t r i a l c o u r t made no f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e v a l u e of t h e
f a m i l y home. The o n l y r e f e r e n c e i n t h e f i n d i n g s t o t h e home
i s t h a t t h e home had been a p p r a i s e d a t $26,500 and t h a t c e r t a i n
r e a l t o r s had l i s t e d i t f o r $34,000. This c o n s t i t u t e s only a
r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e a s opposed t o f i n d i n g s b a s e d on t h e
evidence. I n i t s conclusions, t h e c o u r t determined t h a t t h e
w i f e ' s s h a r e of t h e f a m i l y home w a s $14,000, and o r d e r e d t h e
husband t o pay h e r $14,000 i n c a s h f o r t h i s i n t e r e s t . Since
t h e c o u r t intended t o divide t h e property equally, we i n f e r
t h a t i t p l a c e d a $28,000 v a l u e on t h e home f o r p u r p o s e s o f
distribution. But i n any e v e n t , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e
record t o support t h a t determination.
Nor d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t make a n e q u a l d i v i s i o n o f t h e
personal property. The c o u r t ' s e r r o r c o n c e r n s a $1,400 c a r
payment t a k e n from t h e w i f e ' s l i f e i n s u r a n c e check. Each o f
-2-
t h e p a r t i e s r e c e i v e d a $5,000 l i f e i n s u r a n c e check as a
r e s u l t of t h e i r s o n ' s s e r v i c e and d e a t h i n t h e Armed F o r c e s .
A t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e , t h e husband s t i l l had $2,700
r e m a i n i n g o f h i s $5,000, b u t t h e w i f e had n o t h i n g r e m a i n i n g
from h e r $5,000. The t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e r e m a i n i n g
$2,700 be e v e n l y d i v i d e d between t h e p a r t i e s .
But t h e a u t o m o b i l e s w e r e n o t d i v i d e d i n a f a s h i o n t o
a c h i e v e a 50-50 s p l i t i n value. Value of t h e v e h i c l e s was s e t
a t $4,225. An e q u a l d i v i s i o n would g i v e $2,112.50 i n t e r e s t t o
each. The w i f e r e c e i v e d h e r e q u a l amount o f $2,112.50 when
t h e c o u r t awarded h e r w i t h a $1,150 Volkswagen and o r d e r e d t h e
husband t o pay h e r $962.50 s o t h a t t h e v a l u e w a s e q u a l i z e d .
But t h e c o u r t t h e n went a n a d d i t i o n a l s t e p and awarded h e r $1,400
f o r t h e c a r payment t a k e n from h e r i n s u r a n c e check. Accordingly,
t h e w i f e r e c e i v e d o v e r $3,500, o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y an 85 p e r c e n t
i n t e r e s t i n t h e automobiles. Payment t o t h e w i f e f o r money
t a k e n o u t of h e r check i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t it would d i v i d e t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s on a
50-50 b a s i s . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s o i n l i g h t of t h e c o u r t ' s
award t o t h e w i f e of an e q u a l s h a r e i n t h e remainder of t h e
h u s b a n d ' s check.
W e n o t e moreover, t h a t a t t h e end o f t h e t r i a l , t h e c o u r t
e n t e r e d a n o r a l o r d e r f o r t h e husband t o pay t h e w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y
fees. T i m e and t i m e a g a i n w e have s t a t e d t h a t w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s
are r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h b o t h t h e w i f e ' s n e c e s s i t y f o r payment
from t h e husband, and t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e
fees. T h i s was n o t done.
The judgment i s v a c a t e d and remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s
c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion.
n to, K,
We Concur:
Chief Justice