No. 88-176 

IN THE SITPREME COlJRT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1988 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

DAVID 1,. PURDY, 

Petitioner and Appell-ant, 

and 

MARCIA E. PURDY, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable Douglas Harkin, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Michael Sol.; Sol & b?olfe, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Pau1ett.e Ferguson, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: October 6, 1988 

Cr) 

ILx 

0 3 Decided; November 17, 1988 C .'> 

t-i c - - 

~ila: - 5. 1 :--. . , -* 

a I, I 

LLI 

- -1 $ 

LL - \> -' ;,* 

C3 

-7 

'--( 

2 

<{ fi~?.p *,d2 -x 

L 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

The husband appeals from the property settlement and 

maintenance award in this action for legal separation filed 

in the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, 

Missoula County. We affirm. 

The issues are: 

1. Did the District Court err in failing to determine 

the value of marital property? 

2. Did the District Court err in its distribution of 

marital property? 

3. Was there error in the award of maintenance? 

4. Did the District Court err in failing to determine 

and assign marital debts? 

The parties married in 1960. The three children of the 

marriage have all reached the age of majority. The wife, who 

was 49 years old at the time of the proceeding before the 

District Court, has been a homemaker throughout the marriage. 

Husband, 46 years of age, has worked as a salesman, most 

recently in real estate. In 1981, he stopped working and 

left the family home. Since 1981, the parties have supported 

themselves primarily on the proceeds of their respective 

parents' estates. Husband has engaged in some stock option 

trading, but testified that he lost money overall in that 

venture. 

Both parties testified at the hearing before the District Court that during the marriage, they acquired antiques, 

collectibles, and guns. Both received substantial 

($100,000+) inheritances from their parents within the last 

several years. Their assets also include five automobiles, 

the family home in Florence, Montana, a rental property in 

Missoula, Montana, and a home purchased by the husband in 

Bellinqham, Washington. 
The court awarded the wife the family home and the 

Missoula rental property. It awarded the husband the home in 

Bellingham, Washington. The antiques, collectibles, and guns 

were divided according to the parties' temporary stipulation 

entered prior to the hearing. The court awarded the 1969 

Lincoln, 1974 Cadillac, and 1978 Corvette to the wife and the 

1974 Jeep Wagoneer and 1974 Ford Mustang to the husband. It 

also ordered the husband to pay the wife $300 per month in 

maintenance until her death. 

Did the District Court err in failing to determine the 

value of marital property? 

The husband argues that it was error for the District 

Court to adopt the wife's proposed findings and conclusions 

"almost verbatim" and to omit findings on whether the parties' inheritances from their parents were part of the marital estate. He also contends the court erred by 

distributing the antiques, collectibles, and guns accordinq 

to the pre-hearing stipulation without assigning values to 

the various items. 

Adoption of the wife's proposed findings and conclusions 

in itself is not grounds for reversal. We have stated that 

it is not error for a court to adopt a party's proposed 

findings and conclusions if they are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis for the 

decision and are supported by the evidence. In re Marriage 

of Jacobson (Mont. 1987), 743 P.2d 1025, 1029, 44 St.Rep. 

The court's treatment of the inheritances reflects the 

parties' division; he kept his and she kept hers. Neither 

party suggested different disposition of those amounts in the 

proposed findings and conclusions. 
Both parties' proposed findings and conclusions included 

provisions adopting the temporary distribution of personal 

property, with the exception that the husband proposed that 

some disputed pistols and lamps should be awarded to him. 

The wife testified at trial that she felt she should have the 

pistols and lamps. According to the parties' stipulation, 

all unlisted property was to go to the wife. In adopting the 

stipulation, the lower court implicitly adopted that provision. We conclude that it was not necessary in this case 

that the court set forth in its findings a statement of the 

total value of the personal property. We hold that there is 

no error in the absence of such a finding. 

I1 

Did the District Court err in its distribution of marital property? 

The husband claims that the distribution of marital 

property was inequitable, was based in part on hearsay, and 

omitted consideration of his depletion or loss of inheritance. In considering this issue, the lack of verifiable 

information on the husband's financial situation weighs 

heavily against the husband. 

The lower court found that, "Husband's testimony was 

characterized by incomplete and incorrect answers about his 

financial affairs." In his testimony before the court, the 

husband acknowledged holding certain bank accounts only in 

response to specific inquiries about them. He testified that 

he did not file income tax returns in 1984, 1985, 1986, or 

1987, and did not offer tax returns as evidence. He did not 

present any probate records or other written record of his 

inheritance from his parents. He testified that he has 

suffered substantial losses in stock option trading, but. 

failed to present evidence summarizing his stock market 

activities, although it appears that such a summary would 
have been readily obtainable. The wife listed six different 

names and addresses the husband has used in the past few 

years. In light of all this, we conclude that the admission 

of a copy of an options trading account financial data form 

of the husband's, submitted by the wife, was not error. On 

that form, his net worth was stated as $500,000 and his 

yearly income as $65,000. Under the circumstances here 

presented, we hold that the husband has not shown that the 

distribution of marital property was inequitable. 

Was there error in the award of maintenance? 

The husband argues that the court erred in finding that 

the wife could not work and that he could. He also claims 

error in the amount of maintenance awarded by the court. 

Section 40-4-203, MCA, governs the award of maintenance: 

(1) In a proceeding for . . . legal separation . . . the court may grant a maintenance order 

for either spouse only if it finds that the spouse 

seeking maintenance: 

(a) lacks sufficient property to provide for 

his reasonable needs; and 

(b) is unable to support himself through 

appropriate employment . . . (2) The maintenance order shall be in such 

amounts and for such periods of time as the court 

deems just, without regard to marital misconduct, 

and after considering all relevant facts including: 

(a) the financial resources of the party 

seeking maintenance, including marital property 

apportioned to him, and his ability to meet his 

needs independently . . . (b) the time necessary to acquire sufficient 

education or training to enable the party seeking 

maintenance to find appropriate employment; 

(c) the standard of living established during 

the marriage; 

(dl the duration of the marriage; 

(e) the age and the physical and emotionalcondition of the spouse seeking maintenance; and 
(f) the ability of the spouse from whom 

maintenance is sought to meet his needs while 

meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance. 

The court found that the husband's health is good and 

that he is actively engaged in stock option trading and plans 

to resume his career as a real estate agent. It found that 

the wife's income from investment of her inheritance could be 

expected to be $1,000 per month and that her monthly expenses 

were $1,300. It further found that this income 

is not enough to enable her to live at a level that 

is reasonable given the standard of living established during the marriage. Her medical problems 

preclude employment. After many years of marriage, 

Wife is unable to work while Husband is actively 

engaging in stock option trading and plans to 

resume his formerly successful career as a real 

estate agent. 

Evidence supporting the court's maintenance award included 

the testimony that the husband had vrorked outside the home 

throughout the parties' marriage and up until the last few 

years and the wife had not. Also, the wife suffers from 

systemic lupus erythematosus, which she testified affects the 

mobility of her joints. The wife testified that the husband 

had told her that he expected to be working within 6 months. 

The husband testified that he planned on taking the real 

estate examination in Washington. The wife testified that 

her monthly expenses were $919. This did not include cloth-- 

ing expenses and a yearly mortgage payment of $2,500. F7e 

conclude that the District Court has addressed the elements 

necessary under S 40-4-203, MCA, and that the maintenance 

award is not clearly erroneous. 

IV 

Did the District Court err in failing to determine and 

assign marital debts? 
Neither party submitted any proposed findings or conclusions on the marital debts which the husband now states were 

not addressed. The husband did testify that there was approximately $3,000 on the Mastercard bill and approximately 

$300 on the Conoco bill. He did not offer copies of statements from either creditor to support those claims, nor did 

he offer any evidence in support of his claim that the wife 

had incurred the bil-1s. In view of the absence of support in 

the record for these claims, we conclude that the District 

Court was not required to make findings or conclusions on 

them. 

Affirmed.