No. 05-673 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

2006 MT 287N 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

JAMES CHRISTIE, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

KIMI SUE CHRISTIE, 

Respondent and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Second Judicial District, 

In and For the County of Silver Bow, Cause No. DR 2003-186, 

Honorable Kurt Krueger, Presiding Judge 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

 Daniel R. Sweeney, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Jeannette Ellen Berry, Montana Legal Services Association, 

Helena, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: July 26, 2006 

 Decided: November 8, 2006 

Filed: 

__________________________________________ 

Clerk 
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 

Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum 

decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document, its 

case title, Supreme Court 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 James Christie (James) appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of 

Law and Decree of Dissolution of his marriage to Kimi Sue Christie (Kimi) 

entered by the District Court for the Second Judicial District, Silver Bow County. 

Specifically, James appeals the District Court’s award of maintenance to Kimi in 

the amount of $550.00 per month. We affirm. 

Factual and Procedural Background 

¶3 James and Kimi married in July 2002, in Missoula, Montana. They 

separated in September 2003, and James filed for divorce on October 16, 2003. 

No children were born of the marriage. The parties did not have any real property 

jointly held by them and any marital debt was discharged as part of James’s 

bankruptcy. 

¶4 During the marriage, James was employed as a pipefitter for a California 

and Washington based company called Timec. He earned between $60,000 and 

$70,000 per year. Sometime after the parties’ separation, James was laid off by 

Timec because of lack of work. James took a full-time job with Fisher 

 2
Communications in Butte where he earned $32,400 per year. 

¶5 Kimi had been receiving Supplemental Security Income benefits from the 

Social Security Administration (SSA) since 1998. Following the marriage, Kimi 

was disqualified from receiving benefits because of James’s income. Kimi was 

unable to work, and although she had reapplied for benefits from SSA after her 

separation from James, she had not received a decision by the time of the 

dissolution hearing. Kimi survived on food stamps, Section 8 housing, some local 

government programs and loans from friends and family. 

¶6 James filed this action in the District Court for the dissolution of the 

parties’ marriage. Kimi filed a response wherein she requested maintenance. 

During the pendency of the dissolution action, the District Court ordered James to 

pay the balance owing on a 1988 GMC truck, provide new tires for the truck and 

transfer that vehicle together with a washer and dryer to Kimi as “temporary 

maintenance.” Thereafter, Kimi sought an award of property in lieu of 

maintenance both at the mediation and at the final hearing. The parties had 

already divided any other personal property between them and James introduced 

an exhibit wherein he purported to list the values of the property retained by each 

party. 

¶7 Following the final hearing, the District Court awarded Kimi maintenance 

in the amount of $550.00 per month starting February 1, 2004, and ordered that 

James should continue to pay monthly maintenance to Kimi for an additional 

twelve months from the date of the court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 

 3
and Decree of Dissolution dated September 23, 2005. The court stated in its 

decree that it did not find the property evaluation provided by James to be 

reflective of the actual marital values and that it was not convinced that Kimi 

possessed the personal property enumerated in James’s exhibit. The court further 

stated that although it was unclear as to who acquired certain properties, it 

appeared that there had been an equitable distribution of property. 

Discussion 

¶8 On appeal, James argues that the District Court erred when it awarded 

maintenance to Kimi without first determining the net worth of the marital estate. 

James maintains that the amount awarded was not based upon his ability to pay or 

on Kimi’s financial needs. James also argues that, to justify its award of 

maintenance, the District Court compounded its error by speculating that James 

would return to his higher paying job at Timec. 

¶9 We have previously stated that specific findings of net worth are not 

mandatory if the findings as a whole are sufficient to determine the equitable 

nature of the division. In re Marriage of Hayes, 2002 MT 281, ¶ 16, 312 Mont. 

440, ¶ 16, 60 P.3d 431, ¶ 16 (citing In re Marriage of Harkin, 2000 MT 105, ¶ 31, 

299 Mont. 298, ¶ 31, 999 P.2d 969, ¶ 31). 

¶10 In reviewing an award of maintenance, this Court’s role is limited to a 

determination of whether the District Court’s findings are clearly erroneous. In re 

Marriage of Hanni, 2000 MT 59, ¶ 33, 299 Mont. 20, ¶ 33, 997 P.2d 760, ¶ 33 

(citing In re Marriage of Eschenbacher, 253 Mont. 139, 142, 831 P.2d 1353, 1355 

 4
(1992)). The court may award maintenance only if it finds that the spouse seeking 

maintenance lacks sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs and is 

unable to support herself through appropriate employment. Section 40-4-203(1), 

MCA. In addition, the court must consider the ability of the spouse from whom 

maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking 

maintenance. Section 40-4-203(2)(f), MCA. 

¶11 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 

3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides 

for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record 

before us that the appeal is without merit because the findings of fact are 

supported by substantial evidence, the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled 

Montana law which the District Court correctly interpreted, and there was no 

abuse of discretion by the District Court. The record supports the District Court’s 

conclusion that maintenance is appropriate in this matter because there had been 

an equitable distribution of property between the parties; because Kimi lacks 

sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs; because Kimi is in failing 

health and does not have the means to become self-sufficient in the near future; 

and because James is employed, possesses adequate property and has the resources 

available to him to provide maintenance to Kimi. 

¶12 We affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON 

 5
 

We Concur: 

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY 

/S/ JOHN WARNER 

/S/ JIM RICE 

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART 

 6