Case Title: MARRIAGE OF GOHNER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-03-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14805 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ARTINA GOHNER, Petitioner and Respondent, -vs- EMANUEL GOHNER , Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: J. F. Meglen and Charles A. Murray, Jr., Billings, Montana For Respondent : Berger, Anderson, Sinclair and Murphy, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: September 12, 1979 Decided: AFR 1 - 1 s -. Filed: E r - - ?--:bJ M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The husband, Emmanuel Gohner, appeals from a judgment of t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court 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 marriage as a r e s u l t of a d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e marriage. 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 evenly 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 conclusion of law states: "the property accumulated by t h e p a r t i e s during t h e marriage should be s p l i t on a 50-50 b a s i s . " But t h e property was not 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 support of 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 thus we a r e unable t o determine how it a r r i v e d a t its con- c l u s i o n s . 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 verbatim, t h e proposed findings and conclusions submitted t o t h e c o u r t by counsel f o r t h e wife. These findings and conclusions 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 property on a 50-50 b a s i s . The t r i a l c o u r t made no findings a s t o t h e value of t h e family home. The only reference i n t h e findings t o t h e home i s t h a t t h e home had been appraised 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 it 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 of t h e evidence as opposed t o findings based 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 family home w a s $14,000, and ordered t h e husband t o pay h e r $14,000 i n cash 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 d i v i d e t h e property equally, w e i n f e r t h a t it placed a $28,000 value on t h e home f o r purposes of d i s t r i b u t i o n . But i n any event, t h e r e i s no evidence 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 an equal d i v i s i o n of t h e personal property. The c o u r t ' s e r r o r concerns a $1,400 c a r payment taken from t h e w i f e ' s l i f e insurance check. Each of -2- t h e p a r t i e s received a $5,000 l i f e insurance 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 death i n t h e Armed Forces. A t t h e t i m e of t h e divorce, t h e husband s t i l l had $2,700 remaining of h i s $5,000, b u t t h e wife had nothing remaining from h e r $5,000. The t r i a l c o u r t ordered t h a t t h e remaining $2,700 be evenly divided between t h e p a r t i e s . But t h e automobiles w e r e not divided i n a fashion t o achieve 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 set a t $4,225. An equal d i v i s i o n would give $2,112.50 i n t e r e s t t o each. The wife received her equal amount of $2,112.50 when t h e c o u r t awarded her with a $1,150 Volkswagen and ordered t h e husband t o pay h e r $962.50 s o t h a t t h e value w a s equalized. But t h e c o u r t then went an a d d i t i o n a l s t e p and awarded her $1,400 f o r t h e c a r payment taken from her insurance check. Accordingly, t h e wife received over $3,500, o r approximately an 85 percent i n t e r e s t i n t h e automobiles. Payment t o t h e wife f o r money taken o u t of her check is n o t c o n s i s t e n t with t h e c o u r t ' s determination 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 . This is 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 wife of an equal share i n t h e remainder of t h e husband's check. W e note moreover, t h a t a t t h e end of t h e t r i a l , t h e c o u r t entered an 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 f e e s . T i m e and t i m e again 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 required t o e s t a b l i s h both t h e w i f e ' s necessity f o r payment from t h e husband, and t o e s t a b l i s h t h e reasonableness of t h e f e e s . This was not done. The judgment i s vacated and remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion. n to, K, We Concur: Chief Justice