No. 80-41 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1980 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

EADIE W. SCHULTZ, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

HILBERT SCHULTZ , 

Respondent and Appellant. 

Appeal from: The District Court of the Tenth Judicial District., 

In and for the County of Fergus, 

The Honorable LeRoy McKinnon, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

William E. Berger, Lewistown, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Leonard H. McKinney, Lewistown, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: June 19, 1980 

Decided: JU6- 2 5 19&I 

Filed: Ill! ? 5 WQT? -. .
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court 

of the Tenth Judicial District, State of Montana, in and for 

the County of Fergus, dissolving the marriage, settling 

custody and child support provisions and dividing the marital 

property. The appeal principally centers around the division of the marital property. 

Respondent wife is a teacher and a coach at Fergus 

County High School, where she has taught since the fall of 

1977. Appellant husband is a mechanic and maintenance man 

for the Montana State Highway Department where he has worked 

since January 1973. 

The parties began their married life without assets. 

Except for a short period of time when she was finishing her 

college education at Eastern Montana College, wife has 

worked with husband in his various occupations. Early in 

the marriage the couple operated a service station in Wisconsin, and wife worked with husband in the operation of 

this station. After coming to Montana, husband worked as a 

mechanic in Billings, Montana, while wife finished her 

education. Thereafter , they moved to Lewistown, Montana, 

where wife became a teacher and a coach and husband continued to work in the field of mechanics, prior to going to 

work for the Highway Department. The parties purchased a 

home when they moved to Lewistown for which a downpayment 

was made from monies husband had obtained from his family. 

The parties sold the house in Lewistown and used the 

proceeds of the sale to purchase ten and one-half acres 

outside of town where they erected a Capp home. The Capp 

home cost $25,000 and was put in place over a basement that 
had been dug and poured. The house was a shell of a house 

when it was put up in 1975. Since that time the family has 

continually worked on the house to finish it and make it 

totally livable. This has taken some three years of work by 

husband, wife and their two boys, and the family's income 

has gone into the purchase of materials, etc., to complete 

this house. The property and house are the principal assets 

of the family and are the center of this dispute because the 

trial court's order and judgment directed that respondent 

wife get this property. 

Respondent testified as to the value of the property 

and put the value at $80,000. Husband valued the property 

at between $85,000 and $100,000, and a separate appraisal 

was made by an FHA appraiser who set a value of $85,000. In 

addition, the partiesowneda l o t i n Wisconsin on a lake 

which was recreational property. The value of this property 

is estimated between $10,000 and $15,000. There was at the 

time of the decree of dissolution a $24,508 mortgage against 

the house and ten acres. The rest of the property listed 

and divided by the court was personal property including 

automobiles, horses, farm equipment, and tools, and those 

things that are necessary around the house, including a 

collection of guns estimated at a value of approximately 

$2,500. 

According to the net distribution, respondent wife 

received approximately 73 to 79 percent of the net worth of 

the couple, and husband received 21 to 27 percent. Appellant husband argues on appeal this distribution is totally 

inequitable. 

The issue before us is whether the trial court complied 

with the provisions of section 40-4-202, MCA, in making the 
distribution of property of the marriage in an equitable 

manner, or whether the court abused its discretion in making 

the property division. 

This Court has, since 1975 when the Marriage and Divorce 

Act was passed, considered many cases with regard to proper 

property division in dissolution of marriage cases. We have 

adopted certain guidelines for the equitable distribution as 

mandated under section 40-4-202, MCA. 

Several criteria stand out as mandates, first of which 

is that the District Court make findings of fact from which 

there can be established a net worth of the parties. See In 

re Marriage of Schultz (1979), Mont. - , 597 P.2d 

1174, 36 St.Rep. 1330; Herring v. Herring (1979), - Mont. 

, 602 P.2d 1006, 36 St.Rep. 2052; Vivian v. Vivian 

(1978) - Mont. - , 583 P.2d 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1359; Downs 

v. Downs (1979), - Mont. - , 592 P.2d 938, 36 St.Rep. 

577; In re Marriage of Capener (1978), 177 Mont. 437, 582 

P.2d 326, 35 St.Rep. 1026; Kruse v. Kruse (1978), Mont. 

- , 586 P.2d 294, 35 St.Rep. 1502; In re Marriage of Brown 

(1978) - Mont. , 587 P.2d 361, 35 St.Rep. 1733; 

Robertson v. Robertson (1978), - Mont. - , 590 P.2d 113, 

35 St-Rep. 1889; Grenfell v. Grenfell (1979) I - Mont. 

, 596 P.2d 205, 36 St.Rep. 1100; In re ~arriage of 

Herron (1980), - Mont. - , 608 P.2d 97, 37 St.Rep. 387. 

The above cases generally hold that there must be 

complete findings as to the assets and liabilities of the 

parties and their values for establishment of a net worth. 

This Court has allowed a failure to find a net worth to 

stand only where there has been a 50/50 split of the property. 

See Bailey v. Bailey (1979), Mont. 603 P.2d 259, 

36 St.Rep. 2162; Reese v. Reese (1979), - Mont. , 604 
P.2d 326, 36 St.Rep. 2389; Kuntz v. Kuntz (1979), - Mont. 

, 593 P.2d 41, 36 St.Rep. 662. 

Here the trial court's failure to make findings establishing the net worth of the parties prior to dividing the 

marital property and dividing it in an inequitable manner 

without regard to the husband's contributions and inheritance necessitates a reversal. We remand with directions to 

ascertain the net worth of the parties in arriving at a 

proper division of the same. 

We concur: 

ief Justike