NO. 95-159 IN THESUPREME

COURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANA 1995

IN RETHEMARRIAGEOF MARGARET

HAYES, Petitioner and Respondent, and ROBERTHAYES,

Respondent andAppellant.

APPEALFROM: District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District,

In and for the County of Valley TheHonorable John McKeon, Judge presiding.

COUNSELOFRECORD:

For Appellant: Robert D. Morrison, Attorney at Law, Whitefish, Montana
For Respondent: Matthew W.Knierim; Christoffersen &Knierim, Glasgow, Montana

Filed: Submitted onBriefs: August 17, 1995 Decided: September 13, 1995Justice W.William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Robert Hayes appeals from the January 5, 1995 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Lawand Judgment of the Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Valley County. Weaffirm. Thefollowing issue is raised onappeal: Wasthe District Court's distribution of the marital estate anabuseof discretion and/or not supported bysubstantial credible evidence? This is the third time this casehasbeenbefore this Court on appeal. Margaret Hayes (Margaret) and Robert Hayes (Robert) were married on December 29, 1959. No children were born of the marriage. A Decree of Dissolution was entered by the district court on May29, 1992. Nowritten property settlement agreement
wasprepared or timely filed with the decree. Onappeal, Robert argued that because the agreement wasnever reduced to writing, as required by §40-4-201, MCA, the case should be remanded for a property distribution determination in accordance with §40-4-201, MCA. This Court agreed. In re Marriage of Hayes (1993), 256Mont. 266, 846 P.2d 272 (Hayes I). Onremand, the district court entered anAmendedFindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Although this amended version contained parts of the original transcript verbatim, it still did not contain awritten property agreement. Onthe second appeal, this Court held that the district court erroneously relied uponthe oral agreement of the parties. Again, this Court reversed and remanded, directing the district court to try the case on the merits and dispose of the property according to the applicable 2statutory criteria. In re Marriage of Hayes (19941, 264Mont. 350,

871 P.2d 913 (Hayes II). Onremand after Hayes II, the District Court considered and addressed the statutory criteria set forth in §§40-4-201 and-202, MCA,in reaching anequitable distribution of the marital estate. Thestandard of review employed by this Court in marital property division cases is whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of McLean/Fleury (1993), 257 Mont. 55, 61, 849 P.2d 1012, 1015. In its Findings of Fact andConclusions of Lawand Judgment, the District Court addressed the age, station, health, andwelfare of the parties, as well as the sources of the marital property. Further, the District Court identified the property that comprises the marital estate andvalued the property. Finally, the District Court equitably divided the marital property and awarded maintenance to Robert. Whenthere is substantial credible evidence to support the court's findings andjudgment, this Court will not alter the trial court's decision unless there is an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Maedje (1994), 263Mont. 262, 266, 863 P.2d 580, 583. In this case, the Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Judgment indicate that the court considered the evidence presented by the parties. For example, the District Court stated that since the order of March 30, 1992, Margaret has had complete management authority over the ranch operations. The court also found that Robert recently underwent surgery to remove acancerous tumor, and

3that although heis satisfactorily recovering from the surgery, he

will have physical limitations that may preclude him from undertaking vigorous physical activity. Based on the age and physical health of the parties, the court found that it would be impractical for either of them to consider other employment and
career opportunities. Taking all of these factors into account, the District Court proceeded to value and to equitably divide the marital property. Tomaintain aviable ranching operation, the District Court found that the real property must remain asasingle unit. Oneparcel, the Miller place, is the haybase, while the remaining parcels are the pasture base for the farm andranch operations. Margaret has successfully managedthe ranch operations, thus, the court awarded the ranch properties to Margaret. Since the ranch properties went to Margaret, the court did not divide the properties, rather, the court awarded Robert a cash distribution over time. The court noted that this installment payment arrangement mayalso benefit Robert by shielding him from potential medical creditors and helping him to better plan for his future needs. Finding that Robert lacks sufficient property to provide for his reasonable needs, and is unable to support himself through appropriate employment, the court also awarded him maintenance, pursuant to § 40-4-203, MCA. This Court will not disturb anequitable apportionment of the marital assets whenit is clear that the district court wasacting within its discretion. In re Marriage of Danielson (19921, 253
4Mont. 310, 319, 833 P.2d 215, 221. Here, the District Court did

not abuse its discretion, and the record indicates that the court conscientiously considered the needs of the parties andthe nature of the marital property. There is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the findings and judgment of the District Court.Affirmed. Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1995 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not becited as precedent andshall bepublished by its filing asapublic document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court andby areport of its result to Montana LawWeek, State Reporter andWest Publishing Company.

Weconcur:

5