Case Title: Marriage of Steinmann

Citation: 2024 MT 16N

Docket Number: DA 23-0138

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 2024-01-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
ir,-6L-.--if DA 23-0138 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2024 MT 16N IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JACQUELINE STEINMANN, Petitioner and Appellee, and BRETT STEINMANN, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DR-2020-336A Honorable Peter B. Ohman, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Karl Knuchel, Karl Knuchel, P.C., Livingston, Montana For Appellee: Christopher Gillette, Christopher J. Gillette, PC, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on Briefs: October 25, 2023 Decided: January 30, 2024 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk 01/30/2024 Case Number: DA 23-0138 2 Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Brett Steinmann (“Brett”) appeals from the Order Re: Respondent’s Objections to Standing Master’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Decree of Dissolution entered January 6, 2023, in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. Brett contends the Standing Master erred in the division of the Shadow Circle property and the Diego Way property when Brett was only credited for the initial purchase price of Shadow Circle; the sale price of Diego Way; and then his former wife Jacqueline Steinmann (“Jackie”) received an equal amount of the remaining equity in each property. We affirm. ¶3 Brett and Jackie started cohabitating in Montana beginning in 2007 and were married in 2013. Brett and Jackie had one biological child together in 2011, A.M.S. Brett has two adult children from a former marriage who were adopted by Jackie in 2012. Brett has another minor child from a previous relationship, O.M.S. Jackie has an adult child whom she adopted. Brett is self employed as a contractor and owns his own business, Iron Horse Customs, LLC. Brett earns about $53,400 a year, according to his Final Income and Expense Disclosure Statement. Jackie holds a college degree in accounting and currently 3 works as a strategic deal analyst for Segment Software, earning $140,000 a year with benefits. ¶4 Brett purchased the property and a mobile home located at 6212 Shadow Circle in Bozeman in 1998. The property was paid off in 2004 and Brett then removed the mobile home and built a home on the property for a friend, advancing his own money to do so. Ultimately, the friend backed out of the purchase. Brett pledged the Shadow Circle property as collateral for a $200,000 loan in 2008 and used the money to pay down debt on his Camp Creek Road property. He also used the loan monies to finish the house at Shadow Circle. In 2008, Brett and Jackie moved into the Shadow Circle home with their three children and resided there until their separation in April of 2021, when Jackie left to live in Hobson, Montana. Jackie testified she participated in home construction projects on the Shadow Circle home which included landscaping, hanging sheet rock, flooring, and working on the countertops. During this time, Jackie also took care of the children and performed many household tasks when not working, allowing Brett to focus on his business. Jackie contributed her monthly adoption stipend, student loan money, and wages (when she was employed) to household and child expenses. Brett paid for the mortgage and electricity while Jackie bought food, toiletries, school items, and paid for cable and garbage removal. At the time of trial, the balance of the loan on the Shadow Circle property was $150,895. Jackie presented expert testimony that the Shadow Circle home’s value is $590,000 and Brett agreed, making the equity in the home $439,105. ¶5 Brett purchased another property in 2006 in Manhattan, Montana, referred to as the Camp Creek Road property, featuring 128 acres of land. Brett took out a $790,000 loan to 4 purchase the property. Brett subdivided the property into five lots, with one 40-acre lot addressed as 131 Diego Way. Due to financial difficulties in 2008, Brett sold the Diego Way parcel to his grandmother for $125,000, with the option to buy it back at the same price. Brett’s grandmother died in 2015 and Brett’s mother inherited the Diego Way property, which she gifted back to Brett in 2016. There was no documentation or testimony presented about the value of the Diego Way property at the time of this gift back to Brett. Brett and Jackie planned to build a home on the Diego Way property, and jointly qualified for a construction loan of $440,738. The property was retitled in both their names. Brett and Jackie worked on developing a house on the property, with Brett leading construction and Jackie helping with construction tasks while also caring for the children and working from home. The couple paid for the construction loan on the Diego Way property from a joint account until Jackie stopped making payments in December 2020. Jackie presented expert testimony that the current value of the Diego Way property was $425,000, and Brett agreed with this value. The loan is currently in default with a remaining balance of approximately $150,295. ¶6 The Standing Master’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decree of Dissolution was entered on July 19, 2022. The Standing Master concluded that due to Jackie’s contributions to the household through money, labor, and caretaking, she was entitled to an equitable interest in both the Shadow Circle and Diego Way properties. The Standing Master reasoned that even though Brett had owned both the properties prior to the marriage, Jackie contributed to the family and household which allowed Brett to focus on paying the loans associated with the properties. Additionally, the Standing Master 5 found the two properties had been comingled with multiple financing arrangements and both parties made substantial contributions to the maintenance, improvement, and preservation of the properties. The Standing Master awarded Brett the Shadow Circle property, credited him $70,000 for the purchase price, and divided the remaining equally between Brett and Jackie, awarding Jackie an equitable interest of $184,552. The Court also awarded Brett the Diego Way property, credited him $125,000 for the value of the property before he co-owned it with Jackie, and divided the remaining equity in half, awarding Jackie an equitable interest of $74,852. ¶7 On August 15, 2022, Brett filed a Notice of Filing of Objections to the Standing Master’s July 19, 2022, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decree of Dissolution. The Notice objected to many of the findings, including the amount of Brett’s premarital contribution for the Shadow Circle and Diego Way properties, and Jackie’s 50% equitable interest thereafter. The District Court held a hearing on September 21, 2022, to consider Brett’s objections and issued an order January 6, 2023, affirming the Standing Master’s recommendations, but reducing Jackie’s equitable interest in the Shadow Circle property from $184,552 to $177,552, to reflect the $7,000 Jackie had used from a jointly held credit card to pay attorney’s fees. Brett then appealed to this Court. We thus consider whether the District Court abused its discretion and committed clear error when it divided the marital estate regarding Shadow Circle and Diego Way. ¶8 We review a district court’s factual findings related to the division of marital assets for whether they are clearly erroneous and the conclusions of law for whether they are correct. In re Funk, 2012 MT 14, ¶ 6, 363 Mont. 352, 270 P.3d 39. “A finding is clearly 6 erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, the district court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or our review of the evidence convinces us that the district court made a mistake.” In re Marriage of Tummarello, 2012 MT 18, ¶ 21, 363 Mont. 387, 270 P.3d 28 (quoting In re Marriage of Crilly, 2005 MT 311, ¶ 10, 329 Mont. 479, 124 P.3d 1151). Absent clearly erroneous findings, we will affirm a district court’s division of assets unless there is an abuse of discretion. Funk, ¶ 6. A court abuses its discretion if it “acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in a substantial injustice.” Tummarello, ¶ 21. ¶9 As a preliminary matter, we address Jackie’s Motion to Strike Portions of Appellant’s Reply Brief. Jackie requests we strike several portions of Brett’s reply brief that raise new arguments and facts not contained in Brett’s opening brief. Rule 12(3) of the Montana Rules of Appellate procedure provides the “reply brief must be confined to new matter raised in the brief of the appellee.” M.R. App. P. 12(3). Jackie lists in detail the new issues and arguments she contends Brett has improperly raised in his Reply Brief. After careful consideration of the issues Jackie asserts were improperly raised, we conclude none of them would affect the outcome of this case. Accordingly, we decline to address them further. ¶10 Brett’s primary complaint on appeal is that he believes he was not adequately credited for his premarital interest in and contributions to the Shadow Circle and Diego Way properties. A district court is vested with broad discretion to apportion marital assets in an equitable manner. Funk, ¶ 6. The district court is to “equitably apportion between the parties the property and assets belonging to either or both, however and whenever 7 acquired and whether the title thereto is in the name of the husband or wife or both.” Section 40-4-202(1), MCA. When dividing marital property, the factors the trial court must consider are: the duration of the marriage and prior marriage of either party; the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties; custodial provisions; whether the apportionment is in lieu of or in addition to maintenance; and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income. The court shall also consider the contribution or dissipation of value of the respective estates and the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker or to the family unit. In dividing property acquired prior to the marriage; property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent; property acquired in exchange for property acquired before the marriage or in exchange for property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent; the increased value of property acquired prior to marriage; and property acquired by a spouse after a decree of legal separation, the court shall consider those contributions of the other spouse to the marriage, including: (a) the nonmonetary contribution of a homemaker; (b) the extent to which such contributions have facilitated the maintenance of this property; and (c) whether or not the property division serves as an alternative to maintenance arrangements. Section 40-4-202(1), MCA. “In other words, everything owned jointly or by either party must be equitably apportioned by the district court in a dissolution proceeding regardless of when or how it was acquired.” Funk, ¶ 13 (emphasis in original). The court is “not required to subtract premarital assets or inheritances from the marital estate before dividing it, nor is it limited in its authority to determine how such assets are to be divided. Funk, ¶ 16. Equitably distributing the marital estate depends on the unique facts and 8 circumstances of each case. In re Marriage of Spawn, 2011 MT 284, ¶ 9, 362 Mont. 457, 269 P.3d 887. ¶11 The District Court did not err when it credited Brett the original purchase price for the Shadow Circle property, the sale price for the Diego Way property, and then divided the remaining value equally between the parties. As stated above, premarital property and property acquired by gift are subject to equitable division at dissolution, and the court must consider the contributions of the other spouse as a homemaker, to what extent such contributions have facilitated the maintenance of the property, and whether the property division serves as an alternative to maintenance. Section 40-4-202(1), MCA. The District Court properly considered both parties’ incomes, the duration of the marriage, future earning capacity, education and skills, health and age, each parties’ liabilities, maintenance needs, the contribution of monetary value to the property, and contributions as a homemaker as required by statute. The District Court recognized Brett made the original purchase of the Shadow Circle home and paid for the mortgage, but weighed that with Jackie’s contributions to the home when she paid for utilities, groceries, and other household expenses. The court factored into its distribution Jackie’s household duties such as childcare and physical tasks that facilitated the maintenance of the property, which allowed Brett to focus on his work. Monetary contributions are one factor in the division of the estate but are not the determinative factor. See In re Marriage of Davis, 1999 MT 218, ¶ 26, 295 Mont. 546, 986 P.2d 408. ¶12 The District Court found that the parties cared for their household, properties, and children as a team beginning with their cohabitation in 2007 and continuing through their 9 marriage. The District Court further found both parties contributed to the maintenance, preservation, and increased value of the properties through their income, physical labor, and emotional support for each other and the family. The District Court determined there was no need for maintenance and that the property distributions were therefore not in lieu of maintenance payments. Based on Jackie’s contributions to the marriage and the property, the District Court concluded she was entitled to an equal share of both properties. ¶13 However, the District Court determined Brett was entitled to a $70,000 credit for the Shadow Circle property due to sufficient documentation of value before the relationship began. Brett argues this is too low as it fails to account for the ten years of appreciation on the property before Jackie moved in. However, Brett provided no documentation or expert testimony regarding the value of the property in 2007 when Jackie moved in. A district court “is free to adopt any reasonable valuation of marital property which is supported by the record.” Funk, ¶ 28. While the District Court could have credited Brett more based on appreciation before the marriage, it was not obligated to under § 40-4-202(1), MCA, and, indeed, had no evidence of value upon which to give Brett a higher credit. As we have previously held, “speculation, conjecture, inference, or guess do not constitute credible factual evidence.” In re Marriage of Bartsch, 2007 MT 136, ¶ 28, 337 Mont. 386, 162 P.3d 72. The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it based Brett’s credit on the only tangible evidence of prior value it had. ¶14 Similarly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it credited Brett $125,000 for his prior interest in the Diego Way property, as that also was the only evidence of prior value presented to the court. Brett’s only evidence of prior value was evidence he 10 sold the property to his grandmother for $125,000 in 2008. Brett presented no evidence of value when it was gifted back to him by his mother. It would have been inappropriate for the court to speculate what amount the property might have been worth; a court must base its decision on the evidence before it. Further, Brett is not entitled to receive credit for appreciation of the property during the eight years it was owned by his grandmother. ¶15 Brett finally argues that Jackie is not entitled to an equal share of equity in the properties because he believes he contributed as much to the household as Jackie, and that, in addition, he was also contributing more financially. The District Court reasoned that Brett and Jackie worked “as a team” and each contributed significantly to the maintenance of the household through financial contributions, labor, childcare, and household duties. The District Court is in the best position to weigh the parties’ testimony. Here, we conclude there was no abuse in discretion in the court’s division of the Shadow Circle and Diego Way properties and its decision was supported by substantial evidence. ¶16 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review. ¶17 Affirmed. /S/ LAURIE McKINNON We Concur: /S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON /S/ JIM RICE