No. 92-464 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1993 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

LAVONNE L. WESTLAND, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

and 

ROBERT R. WESTLAND, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: Distr-kt Court of the Seventeenth Judicial 

District, In and for the County of Valley, 

The Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Matthew W. Knierim, Attorney at Law, Glasgow, 

Montana 

For Respondent: 

Keith Maristuen, Bosch, Kuhr, Dugdale, Martin & 

Kaze, Havre, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: January 28, 1993 

Q 9 iQQ I-rfiir PI r~r Decided: March 2, 1993 -.. . 
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

The District Court for the Seventeenth Judicial District, 

Valley County, entered judgment dissolving the marriage of LaVonne 

Westland and Robert Westland and apportioning their large ranch 

between them. Robert Westland appeals. We affirm, and remand in 

part for clarification. 

The issues are: 

1. Do the District Court's findings, conclusions, and decree 

legitimately and adequately provide for division of the marital 

property? 

2. Do the court's findings, conclusions, and decree adequately divide or assess responsibility for the parties' indebtedness? 

3. Do the court's findings, conclusions, and decree adequately address and assess responsibility for tile tax consequences of 

its division of the ranch operation? 

LaVonne and Robert Westland entered into a common law marriage 

in 1958. At that time, Robert owned 3,562 acres of real property 

in eastern Montana, some equipment and machinery, about 100 head of 

cattle, some horses, grain, and feed. LaVonne owned a limited 

amount of personal property. By the time their marriage was 

dissolved in 1992, the parties had acquired an extensive farming 

and ranching operation of over 34,000 acres. Their marital estate 

was valued at over six million dollars, with some two and one-half 
million dollars of indebtedness. The living children of their 

marriage have all attained the age of majority. 

At trial, Robert proposed that he be awarded the entire ranch 

and that he pay LaVonne $50,000 a year as a property settlement and 

maintenance. Instead, following LaVonne's proposal, the District 

Court divided the marital property, apportioning the "North placew 

to LaVonne and the "South place" to Robert. LaVonne testified that 

this division of the ranch property, with 59 percent going to 

Robert and 41 percent to her, was consistent with the way the 

parties had divided responsibility for operation of the ranch for 

years. Robert appeals the order and judgment of the District 

Court. 

I 

Do the District Court?s Iindings, conclusions, and decree 

adequately and legitimately provide for division of the marital 

property? 

Robert allows that LaVonne worked hard as a farm wife and 

mother. He contends, however, that the court did not give him 

enough credit for the property he brought into the marriage. He 

claims that his premarital property must now be worth in excess of 

two million dollars due to inflation alone. 

Upon dissolution of a marriage, premarital property, or the 

value thereof, is not necessarily returned to the party who brought 

it into the marriage. Section 40-4-202, MCA: In re Marriage of 
Peetz (1992), 252 Mont. 448, 454, 830 P.2d 543, 547. The court's 

responsibility is to equitably apportion marital property, taking 

into account, among other factors, 

the duration of the marriage . . . ; the aye, health, 

station, occupation, amount and sources of income, 

vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, 

and needs of each of the parties; . . . whether the 

apportionment is in lieu of or in addition to maintenance; and the opportunity of each for future acquisition 

of capital assets and income. The court shall also 

consider the contribution or dissipation of value of the 

respective estates and the contribution of a spouse as a 

homemaker or to the family unit. 

Section 40-4-202 (1) , MCA. 

In this case, LaVonne's contributions to the ranch during the 

parties' thirty-four-year marriage and her dependence upon the 

marital estate for her future support were not contested. Her 

undisputed testimony was that she had done the "woman's workw of 

raising the parties' children, keeping house, and feeding ranch 

hands, and, in addition, served as a ranch hand and bookkeeper. 

She testified that, in fact, she had been in charge of the "North 

place" since the mid-1970's. LaVonne's contribution to the family 

and to the farm and ranch clearly facilitated the maintenance, 

appreciation, and growth of all of the marital assets, including 

those Robert brought into the marriage. We conclude that the 

District Court did not err in its disposition of the property which 

Robert brought to the marriage. 
As stated above, Robert took the position at trial that he 

should be awarded all of the parties' real property and pay 

maintenance to LaVonne. In its finding number 48, the District 

Court reasoned as follows in rejecting Robert's proposal: 

Payments over a period of time, particularly at the 

amount of $50,000.00 a year, would not be equitable, 

since [Robert] would have all the marital assets at his 

disposal and whim. [LaVonne] would have no assurance of 

her annual payment. [Robert] could encumber or transfer 

assets to [LaVonne's] detriment, and [LaVonne] would 

remain liable for any existing debts of the parties 

including debts to the Farm Credit Services and Farmers 

Home Administration. In the event [Robert] filed a 

petition in Bankruptcy Court, [LaVonne's] payment might 

be found to be unsecured. In the event of [Robert's: 

death prior to [LaVonne's] death, [LaVonnels] payments 

are at risk in view of the federal estate tax problems. 

Under Montana's statutory scheme, maintenance would be proper 

only if LaVonne lacked sufficient property to provide for her 

reasonable needs and was unable to support herself through 

appropriate employment. Section 40-4-203, MCA. However, following 

the court's division of the marital property, it appears that 

LaVonne will be able to support herself through operation of the 

"North place." We have concluded that there is no reversible error 

in the District Court's decision to divide the marital property 

between the parties. The court's property distribution eliminates 

the need for maintenance. 

Robert argues that the District Court had no power to 

distribute ranch property held by Westland Ranches, Inc. At the 

time of trial, stock in Westland Ranches, Inc., was owned by Robert 
(498 shares), LaVonne (one share), and an attorney (one share). A 

significant portion of the parties' real property was held by 

Westland Ranches, Inc. 

Inasmuch as it was an asset of the parties, the corporate 

stock was a marital asset subject to the court's distribution in 

the dissolution of marriage. Section 40-4-202 (I), MCA: Beck v. 

Beck (1983), 203 Mont. 455, 460, 661 P.2d 1282, 1285. We conclude 

that the District Court had the power to order distribution of 

Robert's interest in Westland Ranches, Inc. 

Although, as Robert points out, there is no order specifically 

transferring Robert's stock in Westland Ranches, Inc., to LaVonne, 

the court found that "the partition action could be effected by 

transferring the corporate shares to LaVonne . . . ." The findings 

wilile -7 .~.... -L.-. L. LL - and coriciusioris, not artfilly drafted, ue~~tur~sc~act. LIE 

court's intent that Robert transfer his shares in Westland Ranches, 

Inc., to LaVonne as part of the property distribution. 

Robert also contends that the court did not provide a rational 

or complete directive for dividing the marital estate. LaVonne 

offered extensive expert testimony concerning the workability of 

dividing the ranch into the "North place" and the "South place" as 

separate units. The court found, at its finding number 51, that 

[tlhe partitioning action would be relatively simple 

since the major portion of the land allocated to LaVonne 

is owned by the corporation. The Stellflug, Fox Coulee 

and Welch lands are transferred into the corporation, in 

exchange for the Neufeld CRP lands. Additionally, the 
machinery, equipment and vehicles are exchanged in and 

out of the corporation according to Table Seven of 

[LaVonne's expert's] Report. The historical intention 

was to have approximately 50 percent of the livestock in 

the corporation. Therefore, with a few changes, the 

partition action could be effected by transferring the 

corporate shares to LaVonne and with two exchanges, land 

and machinery. 

The exhibits to the court's findings list the real and personal 

property awarded to each party. 

The District Court left to the parties and their counsel the 

responsibility of carrying out the exchanges of title to property 

necessary to execute its division of marital property. In this 

manner, the court allowed the parties some discretion in achieving 

the property distribution while avoiding the tremendous tax burden 

Robert predicts. If this presents insurmountable problems of 

execution, the parties may return to the District Court for further 

specific orders following this appeal. We hold that it was within 

the power and discretion of the court to divide the marital 

property as it did and that no error has been shown. 

11 

Do the court's findings, conclusions, and decree adequately 

divide or assess responsibility for the parties' indebtedness? 

Robert claims the court ignored allocation of the ranch 

indebtedness. The court found that the livestock should be divided 

equally after payment of the Farm Credit Services operating loan. 

It also referred to the proposal of LaVonne's expert, who suggested 
that the total amount of debt be divided in like proportion to the 

division of total amount of property owned, or 59 percent to Robert 

and 41 percent to LaVonne. However, neither the court's findings, 

conclusions, and decree nor the proposal of LaVonne's expert 

specifies which debts Robert is to pay and which LaVonne is to pay. 

LaVonne suggests that this Court either reform the judgment to 

show what was intended as to the marital debts or remand the case 

so that the District Court may amend the judgment to show what was 

intended. A court has the power to amend its own judgment to 

express what it originally decided or to grant the relief originally intended. In re Marriage of Cannon (1985), 215 Mont. 272, 275, 

697 P.2d 901, 902-03. We remand this matter to the District Court 

so that it may amend its judgment to indicate which specific 

maritai debts are Robert's responsibility and which are LaVonne's. 

111 

Do the court's findings, conclusions, and decree adequately 

address and assess responsibility for the tax consequences of its 

division of the ranch operation? 

In his brief on appeal, Robert states that his 

position at trial was that this was an appropriate case 

for a lifetime maintenance award so he did not feel 

obligated to assist the opposition in figuring the tax 

ramifications of their various proposals to chop up the 

ranching operation or invade the corporate property. 

Now that the District Court has adopted LaVonne's proposal to 

divide the ranch, Robert complains that the court did not adequate- 
ly consider the tax consequences of that option. The District 

Court was only obligated to consider the evidence presented to it. 

The evidence was that there would be tax consequences no matter how 

the court distributed the marital property. We hold that no error 

has been shown in the court's consideration of the tax consequences 

of its distribution of marital property. 

Affirmed, and remanded in part for clarification. 

We concur: 
March 2, 193 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

Matthew W. Knierim 

Attorney at Law 

P.O. Box 29 

Clasgow, MT 59230 

Keith Marisiuen 

Bosch, Kuhr, Dugdale, Martin & Kaze 

P.O. Box 7152 

Havre, MT 59501 

ED SMITI I 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA