NO. 85-33 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1985 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

PATRICIA ANN CHILDERS , 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

and 

GERALD C. CHILDERS, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Custer, 

The Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Parker, Sweeney & Healow, Billings, P1lontana 

For Respondent: 

Kenneth R. Wilson, l4iles City, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: April 4, 1985 

Decided: May 13, 1985 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice Frank 3. Morrison, Jr. delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

The marriage of Patricia Ann and. Gerald C. Childers was 

dissolved on March 2, 1984. A hearing to determine the 

proper division of the marital property was held October 5, 

1984. An order essentially dividing the marital property 

evenly between the parties was issued November 1, 1984. 

Gerald appeals. 

Patricia and Gerald were married December 16, 1965. 

They have one daughter, Michelle, who is now eighteen years 

of age. Both parties worked at the outset of the marriage. 

Gerald suffered a work related injury in 1966 and has not 

worked since. He receives $383 a month in Social Security 

disability benefits. 

As a result of his injuries, Gerald received $43,000 

from a FELA settlement. The couple used this money to 

refurbish a house and to purchase a second-hand goods store. 

Both parties helped in the renovation of the house, which was 

purchased from Gerald's grandmother for $600, the cost of the 

quitclaim deed. Patricia operated the family business in 

addition to caring for Michelle and maintaining the family 

home. 

In 1977, the parties purchased a car wash. Patricia 

then managed both businesses until 1979, when the store was 

sold. Approximately a year and a half before the parties' 

marriage ended, Patricia began supplementing the family 

income by rebuilding junk cars at the car wash and selling 

them. 

In order to further assist in running the car wash and 

meeting their needs, the parties borrowed money from Gerald's 

father, Charles Childers. The car wash wa.s the collateral. 

When they were unable to repay this loan, Charles filed a 
collection action against them. Patricia has since 

transferred her interest in the car wash to Charles for 

$1,500. Gerald has not yet settled with his father, nor has 

his father pursued his lawsuit further. 

At the property division hearing, the parties agreed on 

the value of their house, motor vehicles and household 

furnishings. They failed to agree on the value of Gerald's 

1978 Lincoln Continental and personal property, as well as 

Patricia's tools. Gerald testified that disregarding his 

father's lawsuit, his interest in the car wash was worth 

$20,000. Both parties testified that the car wash should not 

be included in the marital estate. 

The trial jud.ge ordered that the motor vehicles, the 

1978 Lincoln Continental and the tools be sold, and the 

proceeds split equally between the parties. The parties were 

each awarded personal property of approximately the same 

value. It was further ordered that the house be divided 

equally between the parties, either by one party buying out 

the other or by the house being sold and the net proceeds 

divided evenly between the parties. Without ever 

specifically stating whether the car wash was or was not part 

of the marital estate, the trial judge further concluded that 

Gerald's interest in the car wash would be maintained by him 

"in order to afford an opportunity for future income." 

Conclusion of law 1 (D) (4) . Gerald claims the trial judge abused his discretion in: 

including the car wash as part of the marital estate; 

ignoring Gerald's physical condition and its effect on his 

ability to acquire future income; and failing to evaluate and 

allocate the debts of the parties. 

The trial judge gave the car wa.sh to appellant and 

divided the balance of the property evenly. The trial judge 
pursuant to 5 40-4-202(1), MCA, properly considered the 

effect of the car wash on Gerald's future income when 

dividing the marital estate. Although appellant was 

disabled, he had a source of income. 

There is no error in what was done by the trial judge. 

He considered the positions of the parties at the outset of 

the marriage, the contributions of each party to the 

marriage, each party's age, health and occupation, as well as 

each party's future prospects, all pursuant to § 40-4-202(1), 

MCA. He then divided the marital estate, disregarding the 

car wash, equally between the parties. "It is well settled 

in Montana that a district court has far reaching discretion 

in resolving property divisions and its judgment will not be 

altered unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion." 

Eschenhurg v. Eschenburg (1976), 171 Mont. 247, 250, 557 P.2d 

1014, 1016. We find no abuse of discretion in this instance. 

Though he made no specific findings regarding the effect 

of Gerald's physical disability on his ability to earn a 

living, the trial judge obviously considered it. Findings of 

fact numbers 5, 6 and 7 refer to Gerald's injury and/or his 

FELA settlement. Conclusion of law 1 (D)(4) refers to the 

probability of Gerald receiving future income from the car 

wash. Clearly, the trial judge considered Gerald's inability 

to work when he divided the marital property between the 

parties and when he stated that Gerald would maintain his 

interest in the car wash. 

Finally, we find no error in the trial judge's treatment 

of the debts of the parties. Most of the debts pertain to 

the car wash. They are the responsibility of whomever has an 

interest in the car wash. The delinquent property taxes were 

properly offset by an equivalent reduction in the value of 
the house. Gerald was made responsible for his own medical 

bills. There was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge. 

Affirmed. 

We concur: