Title: MARRIAGE OF MARTIN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 85-163 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PEARL E . MARTIN, Petitioner and Respondent, and ROBERT M . MARTIN, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable John M. McCarvel, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Baiz & Olson; Thomas A. Baiz, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Alexander & Baucus; Nancy P. Cory, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: July 25, 1985 Decided : September 10, 1985 Filed: SEP 1 0 1 9 8 5 M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The m a r i t a l e s t a t e o f Robert i ? ! . Martin and P e a r l E. Martin was d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l District Court by decree dated January 31, 1985. Robert Martin a p p e a l s , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n i s i n e q u i t a b l e and r e s u l t s i n s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e t o him. F7e d i s a g r e e and a f f i r m t h e decree o f t h e District Court. Robert and P e a r l w e r e married on August 1-2, 1972. She i s p r e s e n t l y 53 y e a r s o f age. H e i s 60 y e a r s o f age. Though b o t h p a r t i e s had c h i l d r e n by p r i o r marriages, no chi-Idren w e r e born of t h e i r marriage. P e a r l i s a 1-egal s e c r e t a r y . H e r g r o s s income i s $14,800 a y e a r , w i t h t a k e home pay of $844 p e r month. H e r expenses t o t a l $1,430 p e r month. Robert owns and o p e r a t e s Great F a l l s Cleaning Service. H i s n e t monthly income i s approximately $1200, excluding t a x consequences from t h e d e p r e c i a t i o n of h i s business. H i s personal expenses t o t a l $850 p e r month. T h e p a r t i e s t e s t i f i e d and t h e t r i a l judge found t h a t t h e p a r t i e s c o n t r i b u t e d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e incomes t o t h e i r j o i n t b e n e f i t and t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' n o n f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e marriage w e r e equal. The t r i a l judge found t h e n e t m a r i t a l e s t a t e t o c o n s i s t o f t h e following: REAL PROPERTY Family residence - 2271 Beech Drive, Great F a l l s , Montana. (Equity i n c r e a s e s i n c e d a t e o f m a r r i a g e ) . $21,600.00 Rental Property - 807 and 809 6 t h S t r e e t SW, Great F a l l s , Montana 46,831.80 Residence - 1546 Meadowlark Drive, Great F a l l s , Montana PERSONAL PROPERTY 1978 Ford Van 1976 Ford LTD 1966 GMC Van 1983 Buick Stocks and bonds Furniture, etc. Petitioner's IRA Acct. Respondent's LC1 Acct. Petitioner's Gov't. pension Respondent's savings acct. Respondent's checking account Petitioner's checking account Petitioner's savings account Respondent's IRA account Cash in safe (American) (Canadian) Husband's coin collection Joint coin collection Finding of Fact VII. Notably, the trial judge omitted Robert's cleaning business from the net marital estate, choosing instead to permit Robert to retain it in its entirety. The business is worth $81,000: $27,500 for the building; $8,500 for the equipment; and $45,000 for its good will. The trial judge divided the net marital. state between the parties as follows: PETITIONER Residence - 1546 Meadowlark Drive Stocks and bonds 1983 Buick Petitioner's IRA Account Petitioner's Government Pension Petitioner's Checking Account Petitioner's Savings Account Cash in safe (American) (Canadian) Coin collection Cash (to be paid by the Respondent within sixty (60) days RESPONDENT Residence - 2211 Beech Drive Rental - 807 & 809 6 t h S t . S W Personal p r o p e r t y - 2211 Beech Drive 1978 Ford Van 1976 Ford L T D 1966 GMC Van Respondent's LC1 Account Respondent's Savings Account Respondent's Checking Account Respondent's IRA Account Respondent's Coin c o l l e c t i o n Finding o f F a c t V I I I . Robert o b j e c t s t o h i s $45,000 cash o b l i g a t i o n t o P e a r l , claiming t h a t P e a r l t h e n r e c e i v e s 61% o f t h e n e t m a r i t a l e s t a t e w h i l e he receives only 39%. However, Robert f a i l s t o c o n s i d e r t h a t he was allowed t o r e t a i n . h i s c l e a n i n g b u s i n e s s , d e s p i t e P e a r l ' s s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o i t s success. The Court n o t e s t h a t t h e P e t i t i o n e r set up a bookkeeping system f o r t h e b u s i n e s s , prepared income t a x r e t u r n s and answered phone c a l l s , f i l l e d i n f o r t h e s e c r e t a r y ' s v a c a t i o n s f o r 11 y e a r s and saved some b u s i n e s s accounts i n 1978. P e t i t i o n e r terminated h e r employment w i t h t h e law f i r m of Alexander & Baucus i n 1978 t o accomodate [ s i c ] t h e Respondent. A s a r e s u l t s h e l o s t f r i n g e b e n e f i t s and a Keogh Plan i n t e r e s t , having been employed by t h a t f i r m s i n c e 1961. The Court n o t e s t h i s because she i s n o t being awarded any i n t e r e s t i n t h a t business. Finding o f F a c t I X . This f i n d i n g s u p p o r t s t h e $45,000 payment. Robert a l s o complains t h a t t h e t r i a l judge f a i l e d t o properly c o n s i d e r t h e $11,000 i n p r o p e r t y he brought i n t o t h e marriage and t h e $16,000 he i n h e r i t e d from h i s p a r e n t s . Again we must d i s a g r e e . The $11,000 c o n s i s t s o f t h e c a s h v a l u e o f an insurance p o l i c y on R o b e r t ' s l i f e and t h e p r o f i t r e a l i z e d when Robert s o l d r e n t a l p r o p e r t y he brought i n t o t h e marriage. Robert t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t t h e s e proceeds w e r e used t o purchase t h e rental. p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i r d i s s o l u t i o n . That p r o p e r t y was included i n R o b e r t ' s p o r t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e . There is no s p e c i f i c r u l e concerning how an i n h e r i t e d a s s e t i s t o be t r e a t e d when m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i s d i v i d e d . "Each c a s e has t o be decided on i t s own f a c t s . " Vivian v. Vivian (2978), 1.78 Mont. 341, 344, 583 P.2d 1072, 1074. However, 5 40-4-202(1), MCA, does r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e " c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e o t h e r spouse t o t h e marriage . . ." P e a r l and Robert t e s t i f i e d t h a t P e a r l a s s i s t e d i n t h e upkeep o f t h e home, t h e r e n t a l p r o p e r t y and t h e b u s i n e s s . She w i l l i n g l y q u i t a long t e r m job, f o r f e i t i n g s u b s t a n t i a l r e t i r e m e n t s e c u r i t y , i n o r d e r t o a s s i s t h e r husband i n improving h i s own l i f e . Again, w e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l . judge. I n determining whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e reviewing c o u r t does n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The standard 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 without employment of c o n s c i e n t i o u s judgment o r exceeded t h e bounds o f reason 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 . [ C i t a t i o n s ommitted.] Creon v. Creon (1981), 195 Mont. 254, 257, 635 P.2d 1308, 1309. Not only has t h e t r i a l judge n o t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y nor exceeded t h e bounds o f reason, he has achieved a well-reasoned, exceedingly f a i r d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l property. Affirmed. We concur: .-' hief Justice