IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

ELIZABETH A. SUNDSTROM, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

-vsCHARLES SUNDSTROM, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Beaverhead, 

The Honorable Frank E. Blair, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Schultz, Davis & Warren, Dillon, Montana 

For Respondent: 

W. G. Gilbert, 111, Dillon, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: February 25, 1981 

Decided: March 12, 1981 
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Husband appeals from a judgment entered by the District 

Court for the Fifth Judicial District, awarding wife maintenance. 

The District Court dissolved this marriage on September 

4, 1979 and reserved the issue of property division. After 

trial on the property issue, the court entered its findings 

of fact and conclusions of law on June 3, 1980, and awarded 

wife $35,000, payable $10,000 in cash and $25,000 in monthly 

installments over an eight-year period. The court awarded 

all of the property, totaling approximately $67,000 in 

equities, to the husband excepting several items of personal 

property retained by the wife. Husband then moved to amend 

the findings and conclusions and the court modified its 

order by decreasing the wife's award to $30,000, payable 

$10,000 in cash and $20,000 at 10 per cent per annum, payable 

in monthly installments, commencing August 15, 1980, in the 

amount of $305.35 and continuing until 96 payments were 

made. The court then found that a maintenance award in the 

amount of $100 per month should be made commencing August 

15, 1980, and should be paid on the 15th day of each succeeding month for a period of 15 years but then provided that no 

maintenance payment should be made in any months in which 

husband made the payment of $305.35. The order is not clear 

whether the payment of maintenance is deferred or whether 

the particular maintenance payment due is forgiven by the 

property settlement payment. The parties, in their briefs, 

have treated the payment as forgiven and we will invoke the 

doctrine of implied findings to support that position. The 

result is, should husband make his regular property settlement 
payments of $305.35 each month, a maintenance award will be 

forgiven for eight years; then maintenance will commence 

with the termination of 96 property settlement payments and 

will run for a period of seven years. 

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the trial 

court abused its discretion in granting a maintenance award 

as outlined above. Appellant husband contends that respondent 

wife was not entitled to maintenance because she is employed. 

Appellant relies upon section 40-4-203(1), MCA, which provides 

that the recipient may be awarded maintenance if: "(a) 

lacks sufficient property to provide for his [or herl reasonable 

needs, and (b) is unable to support himself Tar hersePf] 

through appropriate employment . . ." 

The District Court did not make a finding respecting 

the reasonable needs of the wife. However, the standard of 

living prior to dissolution is well documented. 

Throughout the marriage the husband worked full-time in 

the wildlife management field and the wife worked part-time 

as a secretary or bookkeeper. Husband and wife, just prior 

to divorce, lived on an income in excess of $20,000 per 

year. At the time of trial wife offered an exhibit showing 

living expenses of approximately $400 per month and a net 

take-home pay for the wife of $464.98 per month. 

Did the district judge err in granting maintenance 

where wife's net take-home pay exceeded her monthly living 

expenses? We think not. 

In Marriage of Cromwell (1979), Mont. , 588 

P.2d 1010, 36 St.Rep. 60, this Court set a maintenance award 

under facts strikingly similar to the case at bar. In 

Cromwell the husband, a law professor at the university of 

Montana Law School, had gross earnings of approximately 
$25,000 per year. Wife in that case was averaging about 

$500 per month in net income from performing as a relief 

nurse. Wife was given the family residence. The District 

Court found the wife's reasonable monthly living expenses to 

be $789.50 per month and granted wife maintenance in the 

amount of $250 per month for the ensuing 12 months, $125 per 

month during the succeeding 18 months and none thereafter. 

The Supreme Court reversed and established maintenance of 

$400 per month, including $100 per month for retirement, giving 

wife a total of $900 per month. 

In Cromwell the court noted the maintenance statute 

previously set forth. In making the award the court considered 

the standard of living achieved during the marriage and the 

husband's ability to provide continuing support. 

In this case the monthly payment of $305.35 was ordered 

as a "buy-out" of the wife's interest in marital assets. If 

the wife is forced to invade these payments for purposes of 

supplementing her monthly income, then she is forced to consume property acquired during the marriage while, at the 

same time, the husband is making an investment of $305.35. 

The net effect is that wife's net worth would continually be 

diminished while the husband's net worth would correspondingly 

be increased. By suspending maintenance payments during the 

eight-year period of time the property settlement payments 

are being made, the wife may well be forced to reduce her 

marital holdings to meet monthly living expenses. Arguably 

this would not be so if the wife continued to live as 

frugally as she is apparently living at the present time. 

However, if she were to maintain any semblance of the standard 

of living existing during the marriage, such an invasion of 

her apportioned assets would be mandatory. 
Assuming that the husband makes the monthly payment of 

$305.35 for eight years, thereby purchasing his wife's 

interest in marital assets, a maintenance award of $100 per 

month will commence in eight years. Given present inflationary trends, the maintenance award granted will be of 

little value. 

We find nothing prejudicial to appellant husband in the 

court's award of maintenance. The judgment of the District 

Court is affirmed. 

We concur: 

ca~;y- 2. 

Justices