No. 14872 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1979 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

KENNETH REESE, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

VS . 

MARTHA LOUISE REESE, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record:. 

For Appellant: 

Datsopoulos and MacDonald, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Garnaas, Hall, Riley & Pinsoneault, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted on briefs: November 14, 1979 

Decided : 

I)EC 31 1973 

Filed: 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Martha Louise Reese appeals from a property division 

and maintenance award entered in a marital dissolution 

action in the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County. 

Martha and Kenneth Reese were married on February 10, 1966 

and resided together until their separation in October 1977. 

Kenneth petitioned for dissolution in June 1978. Martha 

responded and agreed to the dissolution in August 1978. She 

prayed for $600 per month maintenance. Both parties sought an 

equitable property division. 

At the time of the marriage of the parties in 1966, 

Kenneth was 44 years of age and had been an employee of the 

Missoula City Police Department for a period of 16 years. Martha 

was 49 years of age and was engaged in a contract cleaning 

business with the Hoerner-Waldorf Company, located in 

Missoula. 

During the marriage, Martha received title to 136.95 acres 

of land situated in Powell County, Montana, as an inheritance 

from her mother. During the course of the marriage the parties 

paid the taxes on the land from joint funds. Following the 

separation of the parties, Martha divested herself of the land 

by deeding it to her children in joint tenancy. Subsequently 

one of the children died which resulted in that child's interest 

in the property reverting to Martha who in turn divested herself 

of the property by deeding it to her remaining children. 

Kenneth did not claim ownership of any portion of this land 

but asserted that it should be included as an asset in determining 

the claim of Martha to maintenance. 

During the course of the marriage, the parties accumulated 

debts and obligations which totaled $15,000 at the time the 

parties separated. The total assets of the parties consisted 

of a trailer house valued at $3,200, a 1972 Jeep pickup 

worth $2,000, a 21 foot 1978 travel trailer which cost $8,000, 

a 1978 American Motors automobile which cost $5,000 and a 
motorcycle with a value of $1,400. The assets were mortgaged 

for a total amount of $15,000. 

Martha presently has independent income of $425 per 

month resulting from a payment to her by the Social Security 

Administration of $135.90 per month and income from employment 

in the cleaning business of $290 per month. Martha divested 

herself of ownership of the cleaning business by transferring 

it to her son for whom she now works. The maximum amount 

which Martha can earn without incurring a reduction in Social 

Security payments is the sum of $290 per month. 

Kenneth receives income of $545 per month as a disability 

pension from the City of Missoula. Since September 24, 1970 

and at the time of trial he was employed as a security officer 

by Hoerner-Waldorf and received $6.90 per hour. In addition, 

Kenneth will become entitled to a pension from HoernerWaldorf of $180 per month after completion of ten years of 

service, and upon retirement, in lieu of the wages mentioned 

above. 

Both parties testified that they suffered from physical 

disabilities. Martha testified she suffers from an arthritic 

condition and Kenneth testified that physical disabilities 

resulted in his being retired from the Missoula Police Department. 

Dissolution was granted in 1979 and Kenneth was ordered 

to pay $100 per month maintenance. The property was divided 

as follows: Martha was awarded the trailer house, furnishings, 

and the car which was in her possession. Kenneth received the 

rest of the property and assumed all of the debts incurred 

before separation. 

It is from this award that Martha appeals alleging the 

following two issues as error: 

- 3- 
(1) The findings and conclusions of the District Court 

are inadequate as a matter of law. 

(2) The District Court erred in awarding only $100 

.per month maintenance to Martha. 

Martha contends that the District Court erred in failing 

to include in its findings and conclusions, an express determination of the net worth of the parties at the time of 

dissolution of their marriage. In a recent decision, this 

Court stated: 

"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." 

Schwartz v. ~chwartz (1979) , Mont. I 

P.2d , 36 St.Rep. 1980, 1981. 

Similarly, here, net value of the family property is 

not an issue. Furthermore, in the presence case, "[tlhere 

is no evidence in the record that the trial court did not 

establish the net worth of the marital estate prior to granting 

maintenance to [the] petitioner." Maberry v. Maberry (19791, 

Mont. , 598 P.2d 1115, 1116, 36 St.Rep. 1511, 1513. 

Appellant additionally asserts that the facts do not 

support the findings of the District Court. "Findings of fact 

shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.. . ." Rule 

52(a), M0nt.R.Civ.P. The substance of this issue is whether 

the lower court abused its discretion in the distribution 

of the marital property and in making the award of maintenance. 

The judgment of the District Court will not be altered unless 

a clear abuse of discretion is shown. In Re Marriage of 

Vashler (1979) , Mont. , 600 P.2d 208, 210, 36 St.Rep. 

1726, 1728; In Re Marriage of Metcalf (19791, Mont . I 

598 P.2d 1140, 1142, 36 St.Rep. 1559, 1562; In Re Marriage of 
Aanenson (1979) , Mont. , 598 P.2d 1120, 1123, 36 

St.Rep. 1525, 1528; In Re Marriage of Kramer (1978), 

Mont . , 580 P.2d 439, 442, 35 St.Rep. 700, 704; Zell v. 

Zell (1977), Mont . , 570 P.2d 33, 35, 34 St.Rep. 

1070, 1074. 

The District Court in making its property and maintenance determinations must consider the factors enumerated 

in sections 40-4-202 and 40-4-203, MCA. The record here 

indicates that the District Court heard testimony and reviewed 

other evidence concerning the relevant factors set out in 

the statutes. We conclude that the District Court did not 

err in awarding maintenance of $100 per month to the appellant. 

The decision of the District Court is affirmed. 

Justice 

We Concur: 

w --__------_----_--_------------ 

Justices