No. 84-230 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE CFMONTANA 1985

ITJ Rl3 THE MARRIAGE OF WILLIAM R. MORSE, Petitioner and Appellant, and BETTY J. MORSE, Respondentand Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: DistrictCourtof theThirteenthJudicial District, Inand for the Countyof Stillwater, TheHonorableJoseph B. Gary, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant: Graybill, Ostrem, Warner & Crotty; LeoGraybill, Jr., GreatFalls, Montana For Respondent: Stephens & Cole; RobertL. Stephens, Jr., Billings, Montana

Filed: - Submittedon Briefs: May 23, 1985 Decided: August 20, 1985

ClerkMr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr.

### , delivered the Opinion of theCourt.

This proceeding isbefore this Court a second time. In Morse v. Morse (1977), 174 Mont. 541, 571 P.2d 1147, this Court remanded because of an ambiguity concerning the District Court's distribution of $200,000 inherited by the wife several months prior to dissolution of marriage. On remand the inheritancewas distributed to thewife. We affirm. The parties were married in 1945. They have five children, all of whom have reached the age of majority. Neither the husband nor the wife had substantial assets at the time of marriage and the earnings of both were used for support of the family. The parties lived in several areas but eventually their activities centered in Absarokee, Montana. They had an insurance business there. The husband graduated from law school and returned toAbsarokee where he became apartner in the wife's father's real estatebusiness. He also set 

### up a law office. During the next severalyears thewife assumed the responsibility ofmother,homemaker, and part-timeworker in the lawoffice. In the early 1960s, the family moved to England except the husband continued his business inAbsarokee. Thehusband would visit in England regularly and the family would visit inAbsarokee during the summers. The parties' marriage relationship deteriorated and in 1972 the husband petitioned for dissolution. The marriage

was dissolved on October 23, 1974. In August 1974, a few monthsprior to thedissolution, thewife's fatherdied. The wife inherited $200,000 at that time.A trial on distributionof the marital property was held December 9, 1975. The District Court issued an order apportioning the marital estate on January 19, 1976. That matter was appealed to this Court and resulted in Morse v. Morse (1977), 174 Mont. 541, 571 P.2d 1147. In Morse, we determined that the $200,000 inherited by the wife was properly to be included as an asset of the marital estate. Morse, 571 P.2d at 1149. We remanded the matter because of ambiguity concerning the District Court's distribution of this asset. On remand the District Court reconsidered certain evidence on valuation of the marital estate assets. It placed a value on assets not valued by the District Court in the initial proceeding. It then concluded that the original. distribution of the assets and liabilities in the marital estate would not be affected and noted that the only new distribution of assets was the $200,000 inheritance awarded to thewife. The issue on appeal iswhether the District Court erred in reconsidering asset valuation evidence and including certain additional property and new values in the marital estate and in distributing the $200,000 inheritance to the wife.We note at the outset that the disposition of a marital estate is governed by section 40-4-202, MCA, and is largely within the discretion of the District Court. In Re the Marriage of Krum (1980), 188 Mont. 498, 503, 614 P.2d 525, 527. This Court will not disturb the decision of the District Court absent a clear abuse of discretion. Krum, 614 P.2d at 527. The test for abuse of discretion iswhether the trial court acted arbitrarily without the employment ofconscious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason. Krum, 614 P.2d at 527. However, on remand the discretion of the District Court is limited by this Court's instructionsas to the extent of the matters to be addressed on remand and also by the lawof the case. The appellant argues that the "law of the case" precluded theDistrictCourt fromaddressinganymatter other than the distribution of the inheritance. We disagree. In Morse, this Court remanded for a hearing and specific findings on the disposition of the inheritance. It is clear that such resulting disposition would require placing the inheritance in a perspective with all of the marital estate assets and liabilities. Itwas proper for theDistrict Court to reconsider the prior valuation and distribution to the extent necessary to allow theDistrict Court to inform itself of the totalmarital estate as previously determined and the proper equitable apportionment thereof. We also note that the appellant, who now raises the issue of reconsidering asset valuation, moved to disqualify the original presiding judge who was familiar with the case. This procedure resulted in a substitute judge and created a practical necessity of reconsidering certain matters to fully understand.the previousproceeding. Our opinion inMorse v. Morse (1977),174Mont. 541, 571 P.2d 11.47, held that there was ambiguity in the District Court's findings as to the inheritance. This Court ordered rehearing and an equitable apportionment. It was impracticable for the District Court to make equitable apportionment without fully d-etermining the nature of the marital estate. We affirm.justice

We Concur: / 

# ,Lq~L;,,<

Chie Justice