No. 84-230 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE CF MONTANA 

1985 

ITJ Rl3 THE MARRIAGE OF 

WILLIAM R. MORSE, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

and 

BETTY J. MORSE, 

Respondent and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Stillwater, 

The Honorable Joseph B. Gary, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Graybill, Ostrem, Warner & Crotty; Leo Graybill, Jr., 

Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Stephens & Cole; Robert L. Stephens, Jr., Billings, 

Montana 

Filed: 

- 

Submitted on Briefs: May 23, 1985 

Decided: August 20, 1985 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr. , delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

This proceeding is before 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 inheritance was distributed to the wife. 

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 to Absarokee where he 

became a partner in the wife's father's real estate business. 

He also set up a law office. During the next several years 

the wife assumed the responsibility of mother, homemaker, and 

part-time worker in the law office. 

In the early 1960s, the family moved to England except 

the husband continued his business in Absarokee. The husband 

would visit in England regularly and the family would visit 

in Absarokee 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 

months prior to the dissolution, the wife's father died. The 

wife inherited $200,000 at that time. 
A trial on distribution of 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 the wife. 

The issue on appeal is whether 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 is whether the 

trial court acted arbitrarily without the employment of 
conscious 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 instructions as to 

the extent of the matters to be addressed on remand and also 

by the law of the case. 

The appellant argues that the "law of the case" 

precluded the District Court from addressing any matter 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. It was proper for the District Court 

to reconsider the prior valuation and distribution to the 

extent necessary to allow the District Court to inform itself 

of the total marital 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 previous proceeding. 

Our opinion in Morse v. Morse (1977), 174 Mont. 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