NO. 95-159 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1995 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

MARGARET HAYES, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

and 

ROBERT HAYES, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Valley 

The Honorable John McKeon, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Robert D. Morrison, Attorney at Law, 

Whitefish, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Matthew W. Knierim; Christoffersen & Knierim, 

Glasgow, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: August 17, 1995 

Decided: September 13, 1995 
Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Robert Hayes appeals from the January 5, 1995 Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment of the Seventeenth Judicial 

District Court, Valley County. We affirm. 

The following issue is raised on appeal: 

Was the District Court's distribution of the marital estate 

an abuse of discretion and/or not supported by substantial credible 

evidence? 

This is the third time this case has been before 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 May 29, 1992. No written property settlement agreement 

was prepared or timely filed with the decree. On appeal, Robert 

argued that because the agreement was never 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), 256 Mont. 

266, 846 P.2d 272 (Hayes I). 

On remand, the district court entered an Amended Findings of 

Fact and Conclusions of Law. Although this amended version 

contained parts of the original transcript verbatim, it still did 

not contain a written property agreement. On the second appeal, 

this Court held that the district court erroneously relied upon the 

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 

2 
statutory criteria. In re Marriage of Hayes (19941, 264 Mont. 350, 

871 P.2d 913 (Hayes II). 

On remand after Hayes II, the District Court considered and 

addressed the statutory criteria set forth in §§ 40-4-201 and -202, 

MCA, in reaching an equitable distribution of the marital estate. 

The standard 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 and Conclusions of Law and Judgment, 

the District Court addressed the age, station, health, and welfare 

of the parties, as well as the sources of the marital property. 

Further, the District Court identified the property that comprises 

the marital estate and valued the property. Finally, the District 

Court equitably divided the marital property and awarded 

maintenance to Robert. 

When there is substantial credible evidence to support the 

court's findings and judgment, this Court will not alter the trial 

court's decision unless there is an abuse of discretion. In re 

Marriage of Maedje (1994), 263 Mont. 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 a cancerous tumor, and 

3 
that although he is 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. 

To maintain a viable ranching operation, the District Court found 

that the real property must remain as a single unit. One parcel, 

the Miller place, is the hay base, while the remaining parcels are 

the pasture base for the farm and ranch operations. Margaret has 

successfully managed the 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 may also 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 an equitable apportionment of the 

marital assets when it is clear that the district court was acting 

within its discretion. In re Marriage of Danielson (19921, 253 

4 
Mont. 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 and the 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 be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result 

to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company. 

We concur: 

5