No. 81-567 IK THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982

INRE THE NARRIAGE OF RONALD CLYDE HECHT, Petitioner and Appellant,

DOLORES ANN HECHT, Respondent and Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Petitioner: Bolinger & Higgins, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Berg, Coil, Stokes & Tollefsen, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted on briefs: May 27, 1982 Decided: August 11, 1982

Y 4 ClerkMr. JusticeFrank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appealby husband of the October 29, 1981, judgmentand decree of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court distributing the property of the parties. We affirm. Ronald and Dolores Hecht weremarried October 25, 1968. They resided in Shelby,Montana, for four years before moving to West Yellowstone. Respondent taught school in Shelby for three years. After moving to West Yellowstone, she assisted in the office of her husband's plumbing business. She also operated a dog grooming business the last two years of the marriage. Respondent's parents financed the purchase of a lot and building inWest Yellowstone for appellant's plumbing business. Respondent contributed $1,000 cash toward that purchase. A later contribution from respondent enabled the parties to borrow $20,000 to build a shop and storebuilding on their land. They also purchased and resided in a mobile home. The later contributionof $4,737 came from respondent's teachers' retirement fund and the sale of her cattle. Theparties separated in December 1979. Respondent returned to her parents' home in Dillon. Appellant remained in themobile home in West Yellowstone and continued operating the plumbing business. A decree of dissolutiondissolving the parties'marriagewas issued February 19, 1980. That decree stated that the property division disputewould be subsequently heard. It also ordered appellant to pay respondent "asmaintenance and support the sum of fivehundred fifty and no/100 dollars

($550.00) per month starting on the 20th day of February, 1980,and monthly thereafter until September 20, 1980."Respondent used those funds to return to college and reinstate her teaching certificate. She has been unable to obtain a teaching position and currentlyworks as a bookkeeper in Dillon for $3.50 an hour. Appellant earns approximately $25.00 an hour. Both parties are approximately fortythree years old. In its findings of October 19, 1981,the District Court determined theproperty of themarriage to consist of the following: 1. Lot 5, Block 

### 7,West Yellowstone,Montana: Value of Land $30,000 Value of Improvements 28,000 

### Sss,ooo FirstMortgage Second Mortgage

Net Equity $24,000 2. PeerlessMobile Home $12,000 3. Hecht Plumbing and Heating Inventory, including vehicles $12,000 4. Pontiac Automobile $ 6,000 5. Hebgen Lake Lot: Value of Land $12,000 Balance Due on Contract Net Equity 6. Miscellaneous Property and Collectibles $ 3,736 Respondentwas awarded the lot inWest Yellowstone, togetherwith all improvements; the Peerlessmobile home; the Hebgen Lake lot; the Pontiac stationwagon; and all furnitureand collectibles then in her possession. Due to her "realpotential of securing a teaching position," respondentwas awarded no maintenance. Appellant was awarded the Hecht Plumbing and Heatinginventory; the business vehicles; and all furniture and guns then in his possession. This apportionment lefthusband with approximately one-fourth of themarital assets. Appellant filed a motion to amend and supplement findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment onNovember 9, 1981. Appellant's motion was summarily denied November 19, 1981. He now appeals both the judgment and the order denying his motion to amend. The issues presented to us on appeal are:

(1) Did the District Court act arbitrarily and abuse its discretionwhen it divided the parties' marital property?(2) Did the District Court err in arriving at its findings of fact and conclusions of law by misstating the value of the marital assets? This appeal centers around the value of the assets awarded each party and appellant's desire to have the property divided equally between the parties. We grant great deference to the DistrictCourt's resolution of property divisions inmarital dissolutions. Jerome v. Jerome (1978), 175Mont. 429, 574 P.2d 997. The judgment of the ~istrict Court will only be disturbed where there is a clear abuse of discretion resulting in substantial injustice. Creon v. Creon (1981), 

### -Mont. 

## - , 635 P.2d 1308, 38 St.Rep. 1828. The DistrictCourt did not act arbitrarily. Rather, the District Court followed the statutory guidelines for disposition of marital property set forth in section 40-4- 202,MCA. That section does not require equal distribution of assets between the parties. It does require the court to consider such things as the duration of the marriage, and "theage,health, station, occupation, amount and sourcesof income,vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties. 

# .." The District Courtdid so. The DistrictCourtnoted that respondentgave up a teaching career in Shelbywhen her husband established a plumbing business inWest Yellowstone. It also considered respondent's financial and time contributions to the plumbing business. Both parties' present incomes as well as their potential future incomeswere considered. In addition, the financial values placed on the various propertieswere reasonableand supported by independent appraisal. The DistrictCourt appears to have considered all encumbrances aswell as the amount owing on the Hebgen Lake property contract. All marital assets were valued and

a networth, though not specifically referred to, can easily be determined from the court's findingson assetvalues and existing encumbrances. We find the apportionment,though grantingmore equity to wife than to husband, to be within the court's discretion. The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: