No. 80-41 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980

INRE 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: WilliamE. Berger, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: Leonard H. McKinney, Lewistown, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: June 19, 1980 Decided: 

## JU6- 

## 2519&I

Filed: Ill!

## ?5WQT? 

# -.

.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, inand for the County of Fergus, dissolving themarriage, 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 atFergus County High School, where she has taught since the fallof 1977. Appellant husband 

### is a mechanic and maintenance man for theMontana StateHighway Department where he has worked sinceJanuary 1973. The parties began theirmarried lifewithout assets. Except for a shortperiod of time when she was finishing her college education atEastern Montana College, wife has worked with husband inhis various occupations. Early in the marriage the couple operated a service stationinWisconsin, and wife worked with husband inthe operation of this station. After coming toMontana, husband worked 

### as a mechanic inBillings, Montana, while wife finished her education. Thereafter

## , they moved to Lewistown, Montana, where wife became a teacher and 

### a coach and husband continued towork in the field of mechanics, prior to going to work for the Highway Department. The parties purchased a home when they moved toLewistown for which a downpayment
was made from monies husband had obtained from his family. The parties sold the house inLewistown and used the proceeds of the 

### sale topurchase ten and one-half acres outside of town where they erected a Capp home. The Capp home cost $25,000 and was put inplace over 

### a basement thathad 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 continuallyworked 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., tocomplete this house. The property and house 

### are the principal assets of the family and are the center of thisdispute because the 

### trial court's order and judgment directed thatrespondent wife get thisproperty. Respondent testified asto the value of the property and put the value at$80,000. Husband valued the property atbetween $85,000 and $100,000, and a separate appraisal


### wasmade by an 

### FHA appraiser who 

### set a value of $85,000. In addition, the partiesowneda l o t i nWisconsin on 

### a lake which was recreational property. The value of thisproperty 

### isestimated between $10,000 and $15,000. There was atthe 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 courtwas personal property including automobiles, horses, farm equipment, and tools, and those things that arenecessary 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 networth of the couple, and husband received 21 to 27 percent. Appellanthusband argues on appeal this distribution 

### is totally inequitable. The issuebefore us 

### iswhether the trial court complied with the provisions of section 40-4-202, MCA, inmaking thedistribution of property of the marriage inan equitable manner, or whether the court abused 

### its discretion inmaking theproperty division. This Court has, since 1975when the Marriage and Divorce Act was passed, considered many cases with regard toproper property division indissolution of marriage cases. We have adopted certain guidelines for the equitable distribution as mandated under section 40-4-202, MCA. Several criteria stand out asmandates, firstof which 

### is that the DistrictCourt make findings of factfrom which there can be established 

### a networth 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; Inre~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 liabilitiesof the parties and their values for establishment of a networth. This Court has allowed 

### a failure to find a net worth to stand only where there has been a 50/50 splitof the property. See Bailey v. Bailey (1979), Mont. 603 P.2d 259, 36 St.Rep. 2162; 

### Reese 

### v. Reese (1979), 

### -Mont. 

## , 604P.2d 326, 36 St.Rep. 2389; Kuntz v. Kuntz (1979), 

### -Mont.



## , 593 P.2d 

### 41, 36 St.Rep. 662. Here the trialcourt's failure tomake findings establishing the networth of the parties prior to dividing the 

### marital property and dividing it inan inequitable manner without regard to the husband's contributions and inheritance necessitates a reversal. Weremand with directions to ascertain the net worth of the parties inarriving ata proper division of the same.

We concur:

ief Justike