No. 88-449
INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1989

INRE THEMARRIAGE OF WARREN HANKINSWASH, petitioner and Appellant, and
PEGGY LEEWASH, Respondentand Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: DistrictCourt of the Fourteenth JudicialDistrict, Inand for theCounty ofGolden Valley, TheHonorableRoy ~odeghiero, Judgepresiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
ForAppellant:
V. Joe ~eckie; Peterson,Schofield & Leckie, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
John

### L. Pratt;Ask & Pratt,Roundup, Montana

Filed: Submitted on Briefs: June 8,1989 Decided: September 19, 1989Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In this case we affirm the division of the marital estate in the appeal of the petitioner Warren 

### arki ins Wash from a judgment of marital dissolution entered in the ~istrictCourt, Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Golden Valley County. Warren 

### arki ins Wash had been married to Peggy Wash some eight years before their separation inAugust, 1984. Warren petitioned for marital dissolution. At the time, he was employed as a bus driver for a school district earning $21,762.00 per year under a contract that had four years to
run. Peggy had worked for the Milwaukee 

### ailr road before it ceased operations,and at the time ofdissolutionwasworking for the Department ofAgriculture, earning $10,653.00 yearly
or a net of $419.00 every twoweeks. Peggyhad a 14-year-old daughter by a previous marriage, for whom Peggy received child support in the amount of $100.00 per month. Husband had a child by a previous marriage for whom he paid $75.00 per month. The husband had undertaken bankruptcy proceedings which absolved him of his debts except for income tax liabilities. The parties filed separate income tax returns for the years 1984 and 1985 for which he incurred a liability of $5,574.00 in 1984, and $2,257.00 in 1985. The wife, because of her filing a separate income tax return for 1984 had an income tax refund of $453.40. The parties had more liabilitiesto divide than assets. One liabilitywas a $1,000.00 debt owed to oneWalter Meyers for trucking expenses incurred on Warren's behalf. The District Court in its decree awarded two cows to the wife,with the obligation attached that they be immediately sold and the proceeds implied to theWalter Meyers' debt. Otherwise the District Court decreed that personal property in each of their possessions be kept by the respective parties, that each party pay his or her own legal fees and costs, that the husband deliver to the wife a motorcycle and that the husband turn over to the wife a hackamore and set of reins as her property. The court furtherprovided that eachparty be responsible for taxes for prior yearsbased on their separate returns. Vlarren attacks thedivisionof themarital estate on the grounds that it is inequitable and that the District Court made no findings which sustained the division. He claims that the District Court gave him a negative $6,640.24 in marital assets while giving thewife a positive $6,784.68 in such assets. He arrived at this conclusion, however, by taking the highest value for the motorcycle, $4,000.00 instead of the $1,500.00 for which testimony appears in the record. Moreover,much of his negative result isbecause of the income taxes he owes for 1984 and 1985. The District Court further ordered that the husband pay the wife $200.00 per month for three years as maintenance. The husband attacks this provision of the decree claiming that the award of maintenance was not in compliance with S 40-4-203, MCA, and that the court failed to make the necessary findings to supportan award ofmaintenance. Thewife meets the contentions respecting maintenanceby pointing out the eight year duration of themarriage,during which the wife worked to contribute to the marital expenses, and that her earnings are approximately $500.00 short of her necessary monthly living expenses, that his contract as a school bus driver had 

### an additional four years to run, the value of which was not computed in the final judgment, andthat the husband's monthly earnings of $2,418.00 per month clearly enabled him to pay $200.00 a month in maintenance. We determinehere that the trial courtdid not abuse its discretion in the award ofmaintenance to thewife, or in the property disposition since the record fails to disclose an arbitrary exercise of discretion. In Re Marriage of ~oegering (1984), 212 Mont. 449, 510, 689 P.2d 260, 266; Jerome 

### v. Jerome (1978), 175 Mont. 429, 431, 574 P.2d 997, 998. When, as in this case, the ~istrict Court makes an equitable distribution of property, and then determines that the property is insufficient to provide for the spouse's financial needs, it may award maintenance. ~ilt 

### v. ~ilt (1984)~ 209 Mont. 140, 145, 679 P.2d 783, 786. Affirmed.