No, 12196 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WE STATE OF MONTANA 

1972 

- - - 

WALTER FRANCKE , 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

SANDRA JEAN FRANCKE, 

Defendant and Respondent, 

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth .Tudicial. District, 

Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record : 

For Appellant : 

Sandall, Moses and Cavan, Billings, Montana, 

Charles F, Moses and K, D. Tolliver argued, Billings, 

Montana. 

For Respondent : 

Longan and Holmstrom, Billings, Montana. 

Robert W, Holmstrom argued, Billings, Montana. 

Submitted : October 27, 1972 

Decided : 

"?-3 

 JAN^ 197, 

Filed: ,fr\T1 5 . *, 
ivir. Justice (;tine B. 3aiy delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal from the property settlement award in a 

divorce judgment entered September 20, 1971, in favor of each 

party against the other in the district court of Stillwater County, 

following trial to the court sitting without a jury. The action 

was commenced by plaintiff Dr. Walter Francke and defendant 

Xrs. Sandra Jean Francke counterclaimed for divorce. 

The Franckes have three children, a son now I1 years old, 

a son now 10 years old, and a daughter now 9 years old. The 

decree, with the wife's consent, granted custody of the oldest 

child to the husband and custody of the two younger children 

to the wife, The wife was granted a monthly alimony award of 

$1,000 until death or remarriage, and $150 per month support 

for each of the two children in her custody. Provision was 

rnade for the husband to pay all medical and dental expenses of 

aL1 three children. In addition, the husband was ordered to 

designate the wife irrevocable beneficiary of $50,000 in life 

insurmce to protect the alimony. Each party admits to this 

Court that the alimony award has been terminated by remarriage,. 

The property settlement ordered by the court directed 

-:hts iB~fiEe to set over t:o the husband her interest in the jointly 

'7eid property and directed the husband to pay the wife the cash 

;urn of $60,000; $30,000 to be due in 1971 and $10,000 each year 

tor three successive years. The decree further ordered the 

husband to set over his interest in some household furniture and 

his interest in an automobile used by the wife. It appears that 

;:he bulk of the husband's estate was acquired after the marriage, 

~riirough his financial contribution and was held almost entirely 

Irs sole ownership by him. Motion for a new trial was made on 

the basis that the judgment governing the property settlement was 

~loc supported by the evidence, The motion was denied and this 

appeal was taken. 
Plaintiff presents 5ut one issue on appeal, whe~hes the 

svidence justifies the award to defendant wife of $60,000 in 

lieu of property, when the court also awarded the wife alimony. 

The judgment of divorce, support, alimony, custody and other 

property awards are not challenged on appeal, 

From the record, it appears that Dr. Francke began his 

n~edical practice in Billings in 1955. In 1959, he married Mrs. 

Francke at Charleston, West Virginia. At that time he had 

zstablished a successful practice. At the time of the marriage 

Dr. Francke was approximately 40 years old; Mrs. Francke was 22 

years old. The evidence is in conflict on matters of financial 

worth, however, the trial court found in its finding of fact 

No, 8 that plaintiff averaged in excess of $81,000 per year 

taxable income during the past four years; that during the course 

3f the marriage plaintiff acquired property valued in excess of 

$250,000; that the parties lived in a luxurious home, traveled, 

and did all things compatible with their financial position. 

The court found that defendant, three years prior to her 

mdrriage, received the Miss Congeniality award at the Miss 

~merica Pageant in 1956, resulting in appearances on national 

television as an actress; that she had partially completed her 

s~udies in clothing design and was employed by a national company 

in a public relations capacity, receiving a very substantial income; that as a result of the marriage she has not engaged in 

these occupations and now is unable to resume her career. 

The court further found that of the property accumulated 

by plaintiff during the course of the marriage only two parcels 

sf land were in joint tenancy and the balance in plaintiff's 

name alone; that during the course of the marriage defendant aided 

piaintiff in furthering his professional career by participation 

in social activities, medical auxiliaries and in preparation of 

medical exhibits for radiological conventions. 
7 he district court apparently considered more 

in this case than mere financial contributions. 

The law has never confined 'joint efforts' to 

such ---- a - narrow meaninn. The marital partnership 

is more than a businzss relation. The pecuniary 

and proprietary fruits of the marriage are 

frequently acquired by j oi-nt effort, even though 

actual financial outlay may be more the contribution of one spouse than the other. 

 his holding does not make Montana a community 

property state. There is no required percentage 

of allocation to be applied in all cases. Each 

case must be looked at- by the trial court individually with an eye to its unique circumstances. 

Under the circumstances here, we are not compelled 

to state that equal division of the property is 

an inequitable result." (Emphasis supplied). 

Plaintiff's contentions are not valid in light of the 

pronouncements in Cook. Each case must be viewed individually 

and each is as different as are the persons and their lives 

that are involved. Mrs. ~unnewell's situation as a ranch wife 

would not be the same as Mrs. ~rancke's as the wife of a 

radiologist, whose income is derived from referrals from 

physicians. Therefore her social participation, entertainment, 

and work in the medical association auxiliaries would be more 

significant than if she were married to a general practitioner, 

or of very little significance if she were a ranch wife. In 

ocher words, the generalizations argued by plaintiff cannot con- 

,- '.LO~ .- . Conceding all parties give up something when they decide 

LO marry, the court would have to look to the individual case. 

Some wives can step back into their prior jobs or careers and 

some cannot. It would seem the trial court at the time of the 

divorce looks at this aspect of the parties' lives as a contributing factor to the determination in terms of ability to 

proceed to reenter gainful employment. 

We do not feel the argument as to the adequacy of the child 

suppurt award or its inclusion in the discussion is relevant. 

Therefore, we will not comment on it. 

After a close examination of all of the circumstances in 

the record, we feel the award appealed from is supported by 

the record and the applicable law, 
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

'~ssociate Justice t 

/ 7 Chief Justice