NO. 81-493 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1983 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF HAZEL J. 

VANCE, k/n/a SUE STARFORD, 

Petitioner and Respondent, vs. 

RUSSELL L. VANCE, 

Appellant and Respondent. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin 

Honorable Joseph B. Gary, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Steven D. Nelson argued, Bozeman, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Steven Barrett argued, Bozeman, Montana 

Submitted: March 4, 1983 

Decided: June 6, 1983 

Piled: JUN 6 5983 
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District 

issued an order September 29, 1980, dissolving the marriage 

of Hazel J. Vance and Russel L. Vance and changing Hazel's 

name to Sue Starford. Findings of fact, conclusions of law 

and an order distributing the marital estate were issued June 

24, 1981. Amended findings and conclusions were issued July 

15, 1981, pursuant to a motion by Russel Vance. Now, Russel 

Vance appeals the July 17, 1981, judgment which incorporated 

those amendments. 

Sue Starford and Russel Vance were married in Tampa, 

Florida, on December 12, 1974. It was the third marriage for 

each of them, the second to each other. They moved to 

Montana immediately after their marriage and lived in several 

places temporarily before locating permanently in Bozeman, 

Montana, in June of 1976. 

Mr. Vance was voluntarily retired at the time of the 

marriage and held only occasional odd jobs throughout the 

marriage. His time was spent managing his considerable 

financial assets, performing household chores, tending his 

ranch and hunting. Ms. Starford was unemployed until 

February of 1977, when she began working as a secretary at 

Montana State University. Her entire earnings were used for 

family expenses. 

Substantial testimony was presented to the District 

Court concerning the assets each party brought into the 

marriage, the changes in those assets, the assets accumulated 

during the marriage and the value of all the assets at the 

time of dissolution. 

At the time of the marriage, Ms. Starford owned a house 

in Tampa, Florida. Her house payments were approximately 

$65.00 a month, as she had acquired the house at a very low 
interest rate. When she moved to Montana, Ms. Starford began 

renting her Florida house. Net rental income of 

approximately $150.00 per month was used for family expenses 

until 1978 when the house was sold for a net profit of 

$27,200.00. Mr. Vance used those proceeds to pay a portion 

of the debt in his Merrill Lynch account in Tampa. The sum 

represented twenty-four percent of the total securities in 

the account. 

Mr. Vance brought assets into the marriage totalling 

$292,968.00. Of that amount, $159,974.00 consisted of the 

amount outstanding on a contract for the sale of a Culligan 

business Mr. Vance had owned from 1957 until 1975. The 

remaining $132,994.00 consisted primarily of stocks, bonds 

and vehicles. 

Once settled in Bozeman, Ms. Starford and Mr. Vance made 

the major purchase of their marriage, a house and out 

buildings on forty acres of land. The house and land were 

purchased in 1976 for approximately $85,000.00. Mr. Vance 

borrowed $30,000.00 from his mother for the down payment. 

The monthly payments were paid out of the principal portion 

of the Culligan contract payments. There is a balance due on 

the house of $42,000.00. 

At the time of dissolution, $83,700.00 remained 

outstanding on the Culligan contract. The District Court 

held that balance to be a separate asset of Russel Va.nce, 

free and clear of any claims by Sue Starford. 

Further, at the time of dissolution, the parties entered 

into the following stipulation regarding the value of many of 

their marital assets: 

ASSETS FAIR MARKET VALUE INDEBTEDNESS NET VALUE 

Itemized and Appraised $ 17,977.00 -0- 17,977.00 

Personal PropertyMandeville Appraisal 
Itemized and Appraised 

Personal PropertyCindy Nelson Appraisal 

Additional Personal 

Property Items 

Stocks Owned by 

the Parties 

The valuation of the remaining assets was disputed by 

the parties. Specifically, those assets are: the Bozeman 

home and accompanying forty acres; 1400 shares of Sunbird 

Aviation stock; a 1979 GMC "Jimmy"; Ms. Starford's retirement 

fund; and the crop of hay harvested from the Bozeman land 

after the parties separated. 

Each of the parties hired a professional appraiser to 

determine the value of the Bozeman house and forty acres. 

Ms. Starford's appraiser placed the value at $160,000.00 

while Mr. Vance's appraiser valued the property at 

$140,000.00. Ms. Starford testified that she believed the 

property to be worth $160,000.00. Mr. Vance thought it was 

worth $110,000.00. The District Court, stating no reasons, 

adopted the $160,000.00 value. 

Mr. Vance testified at length regarding the financial 

history of Sunbird Aviation. Because of the company's 

financial difficulties, he valued the stock at $5000.00. No 

opposing testimony was presented. The District Court 

adopted the $5000.00 value. 

The GMC "Jimmy" was valued at $7300.00 with an 

indebtedness of $7300.00, for a net value of $0.00. 

Therefore, the "Jimmy" added no value to the marital estate. 

Since Mr. Vance was awarded the "Jimmy", if its net value is 

greater than $0.00, he received a windfall and has no grounds 

for complaint. 

Ms. Starford's retirement fund and the cut hay have 

values of $2,025.00 and $500.00, respectively. Although not 

4 
mentioned in the original findings, they were included in the 

marital estate in the court's amended findings and 

conclusions of July 15, 1981. 

In the original order of June 24, 1981, the following 

distribution of marital assets was made: 

FAIR MARKET 

VALUE INDEBTEDNESS -- NET VALUE 

TO WIFE: 

Cash received for 

stock at separation 

Personal property to 

he retained by 

petitioner 

Wife's personal 

effects 

Stocks or cash to be 

transferred to wife 

TOTAL 

TO HUSBAND: 

Balance of personal 

property-Mandeville, 

Exhibit #16, Cindy Nelson 

& Stipulated Exhibit #11 $33,149.00 -0- 33,149.00 

Sunbird Aviation Stock 5,000.00 5,000.00 

1979 Jimmy vehicle 7,800.00 7,800.00 -0- 

Husband's personal effects -0- -0- -0- 

Family home & 40 acres $160,000.00 $42,000.00 $118,000.00 

Balance of stocks 98,465.00 -0- 98,465.00 

TOTAL $304,414.00 $49,800.00 $254,614.00 

On July 1, 1981, Mr. Vance filed a motion requesting the 

District Court to correct or amend several aspects of its 

order. Specifically, he requested that: 

1. The net value of the family home and forty acres be 

adjusted to reflect the $30,000.00 owed by Mr. Vance to his 

mother for the down payment she loaned him. 
2. The fair market value of the family home be amended 

to $150,000.00, the average of the two professional 

appraisals. 

3. Ms. Starford's retirement benefits be included in 

the marital estate. 

4. The cash received by Ms. Starford for stock be 

amended to the correct amount as reflected in the exhibits 

presented at trial, $24,424.00, not $22,449.00. That amount 

represents twenty-four per cent of the total securities in 

the Merrill Lynch account. 

5. The distribution of the stocks owned by the parties 

be changed to accurately reflect the total stock owned by the 

parties, $173,469.61, not $200,914.00. 

In response, an amended order was filed July 17, 1981, 

distributing the marital estate between the parties as 

follows: 

FAIR MARKET NET 

VALUE INDEBTEDNESS VALUE 

TO WIFE: 

Cash received for 

stock at separation 

Personal Property to be 

retained by petitioner 

(Exhibit #14) 6,155.00 

Wife's personal effects -0- 

Retirement Fund 2,025.00 

Stocks or cash to be 

transferred to wife 76,000.00 

TOTAL 

TO HUSBAND: 

Balance of personal 

property-Mandeville, 

Exhibit #16, Cindy 

Nelson, & stipulated 

Exhibit #11 $33,149.00 

Sunbird Aviation Stock 5,000.00 

1979 Jimmy vehicle 7,300.00 

Husband's personal effects -0- 
Family home & 40 acres $160,000.00 72,000.00 88,000.00 

Balance of stocks 73,045.00 -0- 73,045.00 

TOTAL $278,994.00 $79,300.00 $199,694.00 

In his appeal of the amended order, Mr. Vance alleges 

five specific abuses of discretion by the District Court. 

1. The court incorrectly valued the family home and 

forty acres. 

2. The court incorrectly treated the property acquired 

prior to marriage. 

3. The court failed to properly apply the criteria 

mandated by section 40-4-202(1), MCA. 

4. The court considered irrelevant factors or factors 

not supported by the record in dividing the marital estate. 

5. The court improperly divided the marital estate in 

its amended order. The total decrease in the amended value 

of the marital estate was deducted from the portion of the 

marital estate originally awarded Mr. Vance. 

Finally, Mr. Vance asserts that the division of the 

marital estate violated his constitutional right of equal 

protection under Montana law. 

We find no abuse of discretion by the District Court and 

no violation of Mr. Vance's right of equal protection. The 

amended findings, conclusions and order of July 15 and 17, 

1981, are affirmed. 

The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it 

adopted the appraised figure of $160,000.00 as the value of 

the family home and forty acres. We held in Wolfe v. Wolfe 

(19831, Mont . PI - , 659 P.2d 259, 262, 40 St.Rep. 

211, 214, that: "Where there are 'widely conflicting 

valuations' between different appraisers, the District Court 

shall give reasons why one value is selected over the 

others." In Wolfe, the "widely conflicting valuations" were 

7 
$1,649,166.00, $1,184,725.50 and $450,000.00. The District 

Court chose the $450,000.00 figure. 

Our decision in Wolfe was predicated upon another recent 

decision, Peterson v. Peterson (1981), Mont . -I I 

636 P.2d 821, 823, 38 St.Rep. 1723, 1726, where we stated: 

"At trial the parties presented conflicting 

evidence regarding the value of the home ranch. 

Appellant offered the testimony and appraisal 

report of a professional certified appraiser who 

concluded the value of the home ranch to be 

$740,000 as of September 1980. The respondent 

offered the testimony of a local rancher and real 

estate buyer. He valued the ranch at $402,500. 

The District Court, without stated reasons, 

accepted the lower figure. The District Court is 

free to follow one appraisal and reject another. 

However, here there is a wide disparity in 

valuation, and we are unable to review for abuse of 

discretion in the absence of findings by the trial 

court supporting the valuation selected." 

In comparison, the appraisals in the instant case are 

not "widely conflicting valuations." Under these 

circumstances, it is not necessary for the District Court 

set forth specific reasons. 

Further, appellant's eight assertions of error in the 

adopted appraisal have no merit. The valuation was presented 

by a professional appraiser. She thoroughly discussed her 

reasons for arriving at the $160,000.00 figure. The appraisal 

was supported by substantial credible evidence. The 

appraised value of the property adopted by the District Court 

is affirmed. 

Appellant's second, third and fourth allegations of 

abuse of discretion by the District Court concern the court's 

application of section 40-4-202(1), MCA to the instant facts. 

Section 40-4-202 (1) , MCA, states in part: 

"In disposing of property acquired prior to the 

marriage . . . the court shall consider those 

contributions of the other spouse to the marriage, 

including: 

(a) the nonmonetary contribution of a 

homemaker; 
(b) the extent to which such contributions 

have facilitated the maintenance of this property; 

and 

(c) whether or not the property disposition 

serves as an alternative to maintenance 

arrangements." 

In distributing property acquired prior to the marriage, 

the court is not limited solely to consideration of the above 

listed factors. Those considerations are set forth to 

specifically benefit the homemaker who does not work outside 

the home. The court is also free to consider the other 

factors set forth in section 40-4-202(1), MCA. It did so. 

In awarding Ms. Starford $76,000.00 in stocks or cash as her 

equitable portion of Mr. Vance's stocks, the court considered 

all of Ms. Starford's contributions to the family unit. She 

completed her fair share, if not more, of the household 

chores. She also worked fulltime outside the home, thus 

enabling Mr. Vance to devote his time to the management of 

his financial affairs. 

Mr. Vance would like to have his marriage to Sue 

Starford treated as a business relationship. It was not. 

Equitable distribution of the assets of a marriage depends 

upon more than just each party's initial financial 

contribution to the relationship. Many other relevant 

factors are found in section 40-4-202(1), MCA. It is evident 

from the court's orders and accompanying memorandums of June 

24, 1981 and July 15, 1981, that it considered those 

statutory factors in distributing the marital estate. 

Consideration was given to the parties' occupations, 

amounts and sources of income, vocational skills, 

employability, estates, needs and opportunities for future 

acquisition of capital assets and income. The District Court 

specifically refused to consider any allegations regarding 

Mr. Vance's marital misconduct. We find no abuse of 

discretion and affirm the distribution of the marital estate 

between the parties. 

9 
Next, Mr. Vance contends the court abused its discretion 

when it deducted the total amended decrease in the value of 

the marital estate from the portion originally awarded him. 

Again, we do not agree. The court stated in its memorandum 

accompanying the amended order that the court originally 

"made error in computation" and that the court "was in error 

in the amount of stocks still in the hands of the respondent 

[Mr. Vance] ." Clearly, the court was merely correcting 

errors which had unintentionally benefited Mr. Vance. 

Finally, the District Court judge stated: "It is still 

a man's world as far as income is concerned and I have 

recognized this fact in the distribution of assets." That 

statement is a description of the present relative economic 

status of men and women. It is a realistic observation. 

Applying the observation to the distribution of the marital 

estate between these parties did not violate Mr. Vance's 

constitutional right of equal protection. His contention is 

meritless. 

Affirmed. 

We concur: 

8!ALJ *@d4q Chief Justice 

file a written dissent later.