No. 14622 

IN THE SUPREIE: COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1979 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

DORIS F. SCHWARTZ, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

CLYDE L. SCHWARTZ, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, 

Honorable Robert J. Boyd, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

J. Allen Bradshaw, Philipsburg, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Radonich and Brolin, Anaconda, Montana 

-<r... Filed: i:;, 

-- - 

Submitted on briefs: September 12, 1979 

h! 7 !,: Decided : I; IJ 
Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

This is an appeal from a decree distributing marital 

property following a divorce in the Granite County District 

Court. 

Clyde and Doris Schwartz were married on August 2, 1966 

in Waukegan, Illinois. In 1973 they moved to Montana and bought 

property south of Philipsburg on which the family home is located. 

On September 29, 1977, the wife filed a petition for dissolution 

of marriage, custody of two minor children, and a division of the 

marital property- The husband is disabled and is receiving 

social security benefits. 

The only contested issue in the District Court was the 

disposition of the family home and household furnishings. They 

were awarded to the wife until the children are emancipated or 

reach majority. Thereafter the house is to be disposed of in a 

manner which will ensure that each party receives one-half of the 

equity. From the District Court's decree, the husband appeals. 

The husband has raised four issues on appeal: 

1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in its 

award of the marital property? 

2. Error in failing to establish the net worth of the 

marital property of the parties; 

3. Sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree; 

4. Error in admitting evidence of bank deposits and 

transfers. 

Under Montana law a District Court has far-reaching discretion in resolving property divisions following divorce and 

its judgment will not be altered unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. Zell v. Zell (1977), Mont , , 570 P.2d 33, 

34 St.Rep. 1070. In the instant case there has been no showing 

that the disposition of the family home and furnishings was an 
abuse of discretion. 

Ordinarily the trial court must first determine the 

net worth of the parties at the time of their divorce before 

a proper distribution of marital property can be made. Vivian 

v. Vivian (1978), Mont. , 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1359. 

But where, as here, the only issue is the disposition of the 

family home and furnishings, the net value thereof was not an 

issue. Under such circumstances, the failure of the District 

Court to find the net worth of the marital property is of no 

consequence. 

The findings of a trial judge will not be disturbed on 

appeal where they are based on substantial though conflicting 

evidence, unless there is a clear preponderance of evidence 

against such findings. Cameron v. Cameron (1978), Mont. 

587 P.2d 939, 35 St.Rep. 1723. Here the findings of the 

trial judge are based on substantial evidence and the evidence 

does not preponderate against them, 

Finally, the husband claims error in admitting in evidence exhibits pertaining to bank deposits and checks. This 

evidence has nothing to do with the property in dispute. Error 

may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes 

evidence unless it affects a substantial right of the objecting 

party. Rule 103 (a) , Mont. R. Evid. Here the evidence is extraneous to the matter in controversy and error cannot be predicated 

thereon. 

Affirmed. 

, /-. 

We copcur: 

/* r' 

Chief Justice