### 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, 1981Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, 

### Jr., delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Husband appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court for theFifthJudicial District, awarding wife maintenance. The DistrictCourt dissolved thismarriage on September 4, 1979 and reserved the issue of property division. After trial on the property issue, the court entered 

### its findings of factand conclusions of law on June 3, 1980, and awarded wife $35,000, payable $10,000 incash and $25,000 inmonthly installments over an eight-year period. The court awarded allof the property, totaling approximately $67,000 in equities, to the husband excepting several 

### itemsof personal property retained by the wife. Husband then moved to amend the findings and conclusions and the courtmodified 

### its order by decreasing the wife's award to $30,000, payable $10,000 incash and $20,000 at10per cent per annum, payable inmonthly 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 

### inthe amount of $100 per month should be made commencing August 15, 1980, and should be paid on the 15thday of each succeedingmonth for 

### a period of 15years but then provided that no maintenance payment should be made inany months inwhich husband made the payment of $305.35. The order 

### is not clear whether thepayment of maintenance 

### isdeferred 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 

### wewillinvoke the doctrine of implied findings to support thatposition. The result 

### is, should husband make his regular property settlementpayments of $305.35 each month, a maintenance award 

### willbe forgiven for eight years; then maintenance 

### willcommence with the termination of 96 property settlementpayments and 

### willrun for a period of seven years. The sole issue on this appeal 

### iswhether the 

### trial court abused 

### its discretion ingranting a maintenance award
asoutlined above. Appellant husband contends that respondent wife was not entitled tomaintenance because she 

### isemployed. 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) 

### isunable to support himself 

### Tar hersePf] through appropriate employment 

# .

# .." The DistrictCourt did not make a finding respecting the reasonable needs of the wife. However, the standard of living prior to dissolution 

### iswell documented. Throughout themarriage the husband worked full-time in the wildlifemanagement field and the wife worked part-time
asa secretary or bookkeeper. Husband and wife, just prior todivorce, lived on an income inexcess of $20,000 per year. Atthe 

### timeof trialwife 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 districtjudge 

### err ingranting maintenance where wife's net take-home pay exceeded her monthly living expenses? We think not. Mont. InMarriage of Cromwell (1979), 

## , 588 P.2d 1010, 36 St.Rep. 60, thisCourt set

### a maintenance award under facts strikingly similar to the case atbar. In Cromwell the husband, a law professor atthe university of Montana Law School, had gross earnings of approximately

### $25,000per year. Wife in that case was averaging about $500per month in net income fromperforming 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 $250per month for the ensuing 12months, $125per month during the succeeding 18months and none thereafter. The Supreme Court reversed and established maintenance of $400per month, including $100per month for retirement,giving wife a total of $900per month. InCromwell the court noted the maintenance statute previously set forth. Inmaking 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 supplementingher monthly income, then she is forced to consume property acquired during the marriage while, at the
same time, the husband ismaking an investment of $305.35. The net effect is that wife's networth 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 meetmonthly 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 shewere 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 inmarital assets, a maintenance award of $100 per month 

### willcommence ineightyears. Given present inflationary trends, themaintenance award granted 

### willbe of littlevalue. We find nothing prejudicial to appellanthusband in the court's award of maintenance. The judgment of the District Court 

### is affirmed.

We concur:



# ca~;y- 

# 2.
Justices