No. 90-490 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1991 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KEVIN THOMAS DUNN, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

and APR 1 1 1EI94 

DEBORA MARIE DUNN, 

Respondent and Respondent CLERK OF SUPWEME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Honorable John M. McCarvel, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Daniel Donovan, Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Don A. LaBar, Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on briefs: February 21, 1991 

Decided: April 11, 1991 

Clerk 
Justice Terry N. ~rieweiler delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Kevin Thomas Dunn appeals from a decree of dissolution of his 

marriage to Debora Marie Dunn, entered in the Eighth Judicial 

District Court, Cascade County, which awarded Debora $500 per month 

for maintenance for six years. 

On appeal, Kevin contends that the District Court did not 

consider the statutory requirements for an award of maintenance to 

Debora, and that the amount and term of the maintenance award was 

excessive. After consideration of these issues, we affirm. 

Debora and Kevin were married on July 23, 1983. They have one 

child, Corey, who was three years old at the time of the 

dissolution. At the time of the hearing, Kevin was 29 years old 

and Debora was 32 years old. 

For the first three years of their marriage, the couple lived 

in Billings, Montana. Kevin graduated from Eastern Montana College 

in 1984, with a bachelor's degree in bank operations management. 

Shortly afterward, Deluxe Check printers hired Kevin as a salesman. 

Deluxe transferred Kevin to Great Falls, Montana in 1986. Since 

then, he has continued to work for the company as a salesman. 

Debora has worked throughout the marriage. In Billings, she 

worked as an office manager for a real estate agency. After moving 

to Great Falls, she found work as an off ice manager for Pierce 

Flooring. She left briefly to work for a Great Falls insurance 

agency, and then was hired back again by Pierce. 
At the time of trial, Kevin's gross income was approximately 

$37,000 per year, while Deborals gross income was approximately 

$14,000 per year. The record reveals that both Kevin's and 

Deborals expenses exceeded their net incomes. In addition to 

Kevin's $37,000 salary, he received a company car, a 1990 Ford 

Taurus 4-door sedan at a monthly charge of $25.00; comprehensive 

health insurance, including dental and optical coverage; an expense 

account for meals and lodging for his sales trips; and a $5,000 per 

year contribution to his retirement plan. The only fringe benefit 

Debora had was a minimal health care plan. 

The couple also owned a 1988 Honda Prelude valued at $9,000. 

However, the couple owed the bank $9,728.58 to pay for the Honda. 

The District Court awarded the car to Debora. 

The District Court made the following distribution of the 

marital estate: 

Asset Debora Kevin 

Net sale proceeds, family home 

Household furniture 

Honda Prelude 

Kevin's bank accounts 

Deborals bank accounts 

Deluxe stock 

Kevin s retirement 

1990 contributions to retirement 

1989 Income tax refunds 

TOTAL ASSETS $29,871.83 $22,680.82 

Less Debts 12,509.78 7,452.75 

Net Marital Estate 17,472.05 15,228.07 
In addition, the District Court ordered Kevin to pay Deborags 

attorney fees amounting to $2,112.50. 

The couple agreed that they should have joint legal custody 

of Corey. The District Court, however, granted physical custody 

to Debora, and ordered Kevin to pay $277.23 per month in child 

support. Furthermore, the District Court found that Itchild care 

costs should be divided in accordance with the partiesg gross 

incomes: 28% to Respondent Wife; 72% to Petitioner Hu~band.~~ 

In addition to the child support, the District Court awarded 

Debora $500 per month for maintenance for a period of six years. 

In awarding maintenance to Debora, the District Court found that: 

The ~espondent-Wife is 32 years old. She is employed as 

office manager by Pierce Flooring in Great Falls, 

Montana. Respondent-Wife requests that she be awarded 

spousal maintenance in an amount and for such period of 

time as the Court deems equitable. From the evidence 

introduced, it is clear the Respondent-Wife lacks 

sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs 

and is unable to support herself through appropriate 

employment. Respondent-Wife gave up a better job in 

Billings to move to Great Falls with her husband in early 

1986; she still is earning less now than when she left 

Billings. considering the need of Respondent-Wife to 

find appropriate employment or to acquire sufficient 

additional education or training for better employment, 

the standard of living established during the marriage, 

the duration of the marriage, the age and emotional 

condition of Respondent-Wife, and the ability of the 

Petitioner-Husband to meet his needs while assisting his 

spouse with maintenance, for a reasonable period of time, 

spousal maintenance is appropriate in this case for a 

period of six years at the rate of $500 per month 

commencing June 1, 1990. 

Kevin moved to alter or amend the District Court's decree. 

In his motion, Kevin argued, among other things, that the District 
Court erred in awarding maintenance to Debora. The District Court 

denied this motion. Kevin appeals the District Court's maintenance 

award. 

MAINTENANCE 

The appropriate standard of review for an award of maintenance 

is established by 1 40-4-203, MCA. In Re the Marriage of Sullivan 

(1990), 243 Mont. 292, 298, 794 P.2d 687, 690. As we stated in 

Sullivan, 794 P.2d at 690: 

An award of maintenance is premised upon a finding by the 

court that the individual seeking maintenance 'lacks 

sufficient property to provide for his reasonable needs; 

and is unable to support himself through appropriate 

employment. Section 40-4-203 (1) (a) (b) , MCA. 

In this case, Kevin maintains that Debora's share of the marital 

property and her current employment are more than sufficient to 

provide for her reasonable needs. The District Court record and 

the District Court's findings tell a different story. The record 

reveals that Debora's $940 in monthly income falls far short of her 

monthly expenses. The District Court's findings show that Debora's 

monthly budget ran a deficit of $1,033.77. Kevin argues that 

Debora could erase her monthly deficit with property acquired from 

the marital estate. In determining whether a spouse has sufficient 

marital property to support herself, this Court will consider 

whether the spouse seeking maintenance has received income 

producing or income consuming assets. In Re the Marriage of Cole 

(1988), 234 Mont. 352, 356, 763 P.2d 39, 42; In Re the Marriage of 

Goodman (1986), 222 Mont. 446, 451, 723 P.2d 219, 222. A review 

5 
of the marital property distribution reveals that the District 

Court awarded Debora the Honda Prelude ($9,000) and furniture 

($2,445). Neither is income producing property. See Cole, 763 

P.2d at 42. Subtracting these two above items from Debora1s share 

of the marital assets will leave Debora with $18,536.83 in marital 

assets or I1income producing assets.I1 After paying the $12,509.78 

of debts assigned to Debora, she will have $6,027.05 of assets 

remaining. This amount of income producing property would be 

insufficient to fulfill her reasonable economic needs. 

Next, the District Court must consider all the relevant facts 

in determining an appropriate maintenance award. Section 40-4- 

203 (2) , MCA. That section is as follows: 

(a) the financial resources of the party seeking 

maintenance, including marital property apportioned to 

him, and his ability to meet his needs independently, 

including the extent to which a provision for support of 

a child living with the party includes a sum for that 

party as custodian; 

(b) the time necessary to acquire sufficient 

education or training to enable the party seeking 

maintenance to find appropriate employment; 

(c) the standard of living established during the 

marriage ; 

the duration of the marriage; 

(el the age and the physical and emotional 

condition of the spouse seeking maintenance; and 

(f) the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance 

is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the 

spouse seeking maintenance. 

Section 40-4-203 (2) (a) -(f) , MCA. 
As we stated in Sullivan, "[a] specific finding by the 

District Court as to each of these relevant facts is not required 

as long as the court considered proper information in addressing 

these facts and based its decision upon substantial credible 

evidence." Sullivan, 794 P.2d at 691; Cole, 763 P.2d at 43. 

Furthermore, "these relevant facts are to be considered by the 

court as a whole in the determination of the final maintenance 

award." ~ullivan, 794 P.2d at 691. There is substantial credible 

evidence to support the District Court's monthly maintenance award 

of $500 to Debora. The record reveals, and the ~istrict Court 

found, that Debora has insufficient financial resources to provide 

for her reasonable needs. The maintenance payment also allows 

Debora the opportunity to return to school to improve her 

employment prospects. Her current job is insufficient to meet her 

monthly expenses. The record reveals that Kevin is capable of 

making the maintenance payments. 

The District Court, in awarding maintenance to Debora, clearly 

reviewed the couple's work history, skills, standards of living, 

and the parties1 present employment. Based on these facts, the 

District Court's award of maintenance to Debora is supported by 

substantial credible evidence. 

Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's maint nance award. P 
We Concur: 

&g~--/ Justices