No. 88-449 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1989 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

WARREN HANKINS WASH, 

petitioner and Appellant, 

and 

PEGGY LEE WASH, 

Respondent and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Golden Valley, 

The Honorable Roy ~odeghiero, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

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, 1989 
Mr. 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 

~istrict Court, Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Golden 

Valley County. 

Warren arki ins Wash had been married to Peggy Wash some 

eight years before their separation in August, 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 of dissolution was working 

for the Department of Agriculture, earning $10,653.00 yearly 

or a net of $419.00 every two weeks. Peggy had 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 liabilities to divide than assets. 

One liability was a $1,000.00 debt owed to one Walter 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 the Walter 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 

further provided that each party be responsible for taxes for 

prior years based on their separate returns. 

Vlarren attacks the division of the marital 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 the wife 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 is because 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 support an award of maintenance. 

The wife meets the contentions respecting maintenance by 

pointing out the eight year duration of the marriage, 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, and 
that the husband's monthly earnings of $2,418.00 per month 

clearly enabled him to pay $200.00 a month in maintenance. 

We determine here that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in the award of maintenance to the wife, 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.