Case Title: MARRIAGE OF VINNER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-12-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 82-97 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE OF MONTANA 1982 I N RE T H E MARRIAGE OF 174Y'HLEEN ANN VINNER, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, 1bUIiRK KINSEY VIiJNER, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h 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 of Yellowstone, The Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Ralph L. H e r r i o t t , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Sandall & Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : October 1 4 , 1982 Decided: December 3 , 1 9 8 2 F i l e d : \-!LC ' f: 'lY8'h, M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Respondent w i f e commenced t h i s a c t i o n f o r a d e c r e e of d i s s o - l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e i n t h e T h i r t e e n t h 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 of Yellowstone. The District Court e n t e r e d f i n d - i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w on December 24, 1981, and f i n a l judgment and d e c r e e on J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1982. A p p e l l a n t husband a p p e a l s from t h e District C o u r t ' s judgment and d e c r e e . The p a r t i e s were married i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, on J a n u a r y 2, 1973. The m a r r i a g e produced t w o c h i l d r e n . The w i f e was age 28 a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and is employed i n t h e customer ser- v i c e department of t h e B i l l i n g s Water Department. Wife e a r n s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1,200 p e r month and t a k e s home a b o u t $800 p e r month. Wife a l s o h a s a o n e - s i x t h i n t e r e s t i n a f a m i l y farm which y i e l d s h e r $1,500 income p e r y e a r . Husband was age 3 1 a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and is employed a s a s a l e s p e r s o n a t Chantel Jewelers. Husband e a r n s an a v e r a g e of $816.74 p e r month and t a k e s home a p p r o x i m a t e l y $669.80 p e r month. The p a r t i e s accumulated v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e which was d i v i d e d between t h e p a r t i e s upon t h e i r separa- t i o n . The p a r t i e s a l s o purchased a home l o c a t e d a t 2 2 1 Suburban D r i v e . The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h e home h a s a p r e s e n t v a l u e of $59,700. The home h a s a mortgage of $35,759, w i t h monthly payments of $348. A f t e r t h e p a r t i e s purchased t h e home i n March 1977, t h e y borrowed $2,500 from t h e l e n d i n g agency f i n a n c i n g t h e home f o r a down payment, $5,000 from t h e Rimrock C r e d i t Union f o r t h e purchase of household goods and $6,000 from t h e S e c u r i t y Bank f o r home improvements. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e y also borrowed money from w i f e ' s uncle on two o c c a s i o n s i n a total amount of $7,000 o f which t h e y had p a i d back $750 a t t h e t i m e of h e a r i n g . The District Court found t h e n e t e q u i t y i n t h e home should be awarded 60 p e r c e n t to w i f e , 40 p e r c e n t to husband b u t t h a t it would n o t be j u s t or e q u i t a b l e to s e l l t h e home and d i v i d e t h e p r o c e e d s . I n l i e u of sale, t h e D i s t r i c t Court found husband's e q u i t y i n t h e house to e q u a l $9,576.40 and o r d e r e d such e q u i t y must be c r e d i t e d to h u s b a n d ' s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a t t h e r a t e of $200 p e r month u n t i l h u s b a n d ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e home is s a t i s f i e d . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d husband to pay a n a d d i t i o n a l $100 p e r month per c h i l d or $200 p e r month to w i f e as c h i l d sup- p o r t . When t h e h u s b a n d ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e home h a s been s a t i s f i e d , husband is to pay $200 p e r c h i l d per month or $400 p e r month to w i f e as c h i l d s u p p o r t . The District C o u r t o r d e r e d husband to assume $ 3 , 7 0 0 o f t h e m a r i t a l l i a b i l i t i e s and w i f e t o assume $ 7 , 2 5 0 o f t h e m a r i t a l l i a b i l i t i e s . Husband a p p e a l s from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r r e q u i r i n g husband to pay $400 a month c h i l d s u p p o r t and to c r e d i t $200 o f t h e total $400 a g a i n s t t h e $9,576.40 e q u i t y he h a s i n t h e f a m i l y home. The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e as f o l l o w s : 1. Whether t h e District Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n by d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e m a r i t a l estate; 60 p e r c e n t to t h e w i f e and 40 p e r c e n t to t h e husband. 2 . Whether t h e District C o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n by r e q u i r i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t husband to pay c h i l d s u p p o r t i n a n amount i n e x c e s s o f what t h e f a c t s show t h e a b i l i t y of t h e r e s p o n d e n t to b e , under a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and f a c t s con- c e r n i n g t h e f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y of t h e r e s p o n d e n t husband. 3. Whether t h e District C o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n by making an award of c h i l d s u p p o r t to be p a i d o u t of t h e r e s p o n d e n t h u s b a n d ' s e q u i t y i n t h e marital r e a l p r o p e r t y based upon p r e s e n t v a l u e w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e f a c t s of a p p r e c i a t i o n or d e p r e c i a t i o n of t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y . Husband f i r s t a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y and exceeded t h e bounds of r e a s o n by a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e e q u i t y of t h e f a m i l y home, 60 p e r c e n t to w i f e , 40 p e r c e n t to husband. Husband c o r r e c t l y cites s e c t i o n 40-4-202(1), MCA, as t h e s t a t u t e which g o v e r n s e q u i t a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n of p r o p e r t y i n a d i s s o l u t i o n pro- c e e d i n g . T h i s Court h a s many times d e c i d e d t h i s i s s u e and d o e s n o t choose to r e h a s h t h e same arguments i n t h i s case: " I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n , t h e reviewing c o u r t does not s u b s t i t u t e its judgment f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The s t a n d a r d f o r review is whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y w i t h o u t employment of c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment or exceeded t h e bounds of r e a s o n r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e ." B o l i c h v. B o l i c h (19821, Mont . .. - - - , 647 P.2d 844, 39 St.Rep. 1-137;- Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t appears t o have followed t h e s t a t u t o r y criteria set o u t i n s e c t i o n 40-4-202, MCA. Husband h a s f a i l e d to s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e a s to any p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n why t h e 60 p e r c e n t - 40 p e r c e n t s p l i t is i n e q u i t a b l e o t h e r t h a n to s i m p l y s t a t e t h a t it is a r b i t r a r y and e x c e e d s t h e bounds of r e a s o n . W e f i n d 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 o s u p p o r t t h e District C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g . W i f e was l e f t w i t h a s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r p o r t i o n of t h e m a r i t a l l i a b i l i t i e s and t h a t a l o n e would j u s t i f y a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i n t h i s c a s e . W e a f f i r m t h e District Court I s r u l i n g on t h i s i s s u e . Husband n e x t c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e - t i o n by r e q u i r i n g him to pay c h i l d s u p p o r t i n e x c e s s of husband's a b i l i t y to pay. S e c t i o n 40-4-204 g o v e r n s an award of c h i l d sup- p o r t . The s e c t i o n states: " I n a proceeding f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e . . . , t h e c o u r t may o r d e r e i t h e r or both p a r e n t s owing a d u t y of s u p p o r t to a c h i l d to pay an amount r e a s o n a b l e o r n e c e s s a r y f o r h i s s u p p o r t . . ., a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g : " ( 2 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s of t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ; " ( 3 ) t h e s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g t h e c h i l d would have enjoyed had t h e m a r r i a g e n o t been d i s s o l v e d ; " ( 5 ) t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s and needs of t h e noncustod i a l p a r e n t . " Thus, t h e s e c t i o n r e q u i r e s c h i l d s u p p o r t depending on t h e finan- c i a l r e s o u r c e s of both p a r e n t s , i n an amount s u f f i c i e n t to pro- v i d e a s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g s i m i l a r to t h a t which t h e c h i l d would have enjoyed had t h e marriage continued. Here, t h e D i s t r i c t Court simply made a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e husband is a b l e to c o n t r i - b u t e $400 p e r month f o r c h i l d support t a k i n g i n t o account h i s e q u i t y i n t h e home. The D i s t r i c t Court d i d not make a f i n d i n g a s t o t h e amount n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t the c h i l d r e n , nor d i d t h e District Court make a f i n d i n g a s t o t h e amount t h e wife is a b l e t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s u p p o r t . W e remand to t h e District Court t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 40-4-204, and e n t e r judgment a c c o r d i n g l y . Husband l a s t l y a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by o r d e r i n g h i s e q u i t y i n the f a m i l y home be c r e d i t e d a s c h i l d s u p p o r t a t t h e r a t e of $200 p e r month u n t i l h i s e q u i t y is exhausted. Husband c l a i m s he should be a b l e to c o l l e c t i n t e r e s t on h i s e q u i t y o r a t l e a s t be g i v e n some c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e e v e n t t h e p r o p e r t y a p p r e c i a t e s i n value b e f o r e h i s e q u i t y is s a t i s f i e d . Wife argues t h i s Court has held t h a t providing f o r c h i l d support o u t of mari- t a l a s s e t s is p e r m i s s i b l e and w i t h i n the power of the D i s t r i c t Court. Wife cites C r a b t r e e v. C r a b t r e e ( 1 9 8 2 ) , I - Mont . - 651 P.2d 29, 39 St.Rep. 1668, a s a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t of h e r con- t e n t i o n . However, i n C r a b t r e e t h i s Court r u l e d m a r i t a l a s s e t s - -- could be a p p l i e d t o r e t r o a c t i v e support payments due and owing a t t h e t i m e of t h e d e c r e e . That is an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r from t h e case a t hand. To simply award husband an e q u i t y i n t h e house of $9,576.40 t o be c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t h i s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n a t t h e r a t e of $200 a month u n t i l t h e e q u i t y has been s a t i s f i e d is a r b i t r a r y and does exceed the bounds of reason. W e a p p r e c i a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s concern t h a t the n e t e q u i t y i n t h e f a m i l y home may not j u s t i f y a s a l e and the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t wife might n o t be a b l e t o f i n d a comparable r e s i d e n c e with a comparable monthly payment. However, i f the D i s t r i c t Court is going t o r e q u i r e husband t o a p p l y h i s home e q u i t y a g a i n s t h i s c h i l d sup- p o r t o b l i g a t i o n , then t h e D i s t r i c t Court must a l s o c r e d i t husband's ongoing p r i n c i p a l with i n t e r e s t computed a t a reason- a b l e r a t e . ---- Affirmed i n p a r t , r e v e r s e d & d r e m 3 d e d i n p a r t . I J u s t i c e W e concur: ? - & - 9 9 ' 5 i z L 9 . 4 -4z7 Chief Justice