No. 82-403 

IN THE SUPREIulE COURT OF TBE STATE OF MONTANA 

1983 

N RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

EADIE W. SCWULTZ, 

Petitioner and Respondnet, 

-vsIjILBERT E . SCIIULTZ , 

Respondent and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, 

In and For the County of Fergus, The Honorable 

LeRoy McKinnon, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

William E. Berger, Lewistown, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Leonard B. McKinney, Lewistown, Montana 

-- p- --- 

Submitted on Briefs: February 10, 1983 

Decided: April 21, 1983 

Filed: WPR 2 1 1983 
Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

This is the second appeal brought by the husband from a 

decree of dissolution by the Fergus County District Court. 

We remanded the case the first time because the trial court 

failed to make a finding of the net worth of the parties 

before dividing the marital estate, and because the trial 

court had divided the property without considering the 

husband's contribution and inheritance. Schultz v. Schultz 

(1980) , - Mont . - , 613 P.2d 1022, 37 St.Rep. 1042. 

On remand the trial court held a second hearing and 

entered new findings and conclusions and a new order. The 

court made a specific finding of the parties net worth, and 

set out reasons for the property distribution. The net 

marital estate was valued at $103,948.50, and the trial court 

awarded the wife property valued at $62,517 and the husband 

property valued at $41,431.50. 

In this second appeal, the husband claims that the trial 

court's findings are not supported by substantial credible 

evidence, that the trial court again failed to consider all 

of the husband's contributions to the accumulation of the 

marital assets, and that the trial court has exceeded the 

bounds of good conscience. We affirm. 

The parties were married 24 years and had two children 

who are now adults. Both the husband and wife had been 

employed throughout most of the marriage. Both are currently 

employed and self-supporting. 

On remand, the court corrected its earlier error by 

making findings of fact which included a detailed inventory 

and valuation of the marital assets and liabilities. The 
principal asset was a Capp home which they bought in 1975 and 

had installed as a shell on a ten and one-half acre tract. 

The family worked on finishing the house over the next three 

years. The trial court found that the husband acted as an 

overseer and did some of the work, but that the bulk of the 

work was done by the wife and two sons. 

The second error upon which we reversed involved the 

trial court's failure to take into account the husband's 

contribution and inheritance in dividing the marital estate. 

This time the trial court made detailed findings of the 

relative contributions of both parties. We summarize those 

findings in the following paragraphs. 

During the last three years of the marriage, the husband 

drank to excess and was generally antagonistic and somewhat 

destructive. He would sit in the house and drink beer and 

flip the empties against the wall, making dents; he broke a 

glass sliding door in anger; he broke the outside light 

bulbs, a.llegedly because "they never turn them off;" and he 

drove through the closed gate and tore out fence on the side 

of the yard. 

During the separation, the husband lived on the property 

for a time, but let the property fall into a state of 

disrepair. The trial court viewed the premises after he had 

lived there and found that the house had been left without 

heat, some of the flooring had been damaged, the septic 

system was not working, and the yard was littered with junk 

and horse manure. Later, however, the wife lived on the 

property and repaired and maintained it. 

After the parties were separated, the youngest son lived 

with his mother from January 1979 until he reached his 
majority in September 1979. The husband did not contribute 

to the son's support, although he was able to. 

Over the years the wife did all of the household work. 

She raised a garden and poultry for the family use. 

During the marriage, the husband inherited approximately 

$6,600 from his father and borrowed another $5,000 from his 

mother. The wife borrowed $10,000 from her parents. The 

parties each have a retirement fund and agree that it remain 

the separate property of each. 

During at least the last three years of the marriage, 

the husband has spent a good part of his income on alcoholic 

beverages. Throughout the marriage, the wife's income has 

gone to the family benefit. 

Based on those findings, the trial court concluded that 

age, health, station, occupation, skills and employability 

are not of significance in this property division, and that 

both parties appear to have equal opportunity for future 

earnings. The trial court also concluded that the wife 

tended to be a stabilizing factor in the marriage, that the 

family home has more than just a commercial value to her, and 

that during the later years of the marriage the husband 

tended to dissipate the property. 

Based on this background, the trial court awarded 

property valued at $62,517 to the wife, and awarded property 

valued at $41,431.50 to the husband. 

The husband first contends that the trial court's 

findings are not supported by substantial credible evidence. 

For example, the husband has challenged the trial court's 

finding that the bulk of the work on the Capp home was done 

by the wife and sons with the husband acting as overseer. 

The husband does not deny that the wife and sons worked on 
the house. Rather, he has urged the court to find that an 

overseer is more important to a construction project than 

laborers and that his wife and children did not have the 

technical skills to finish the house without his supervision. 

The husband has not shown a clear preponderance of evidence 

against the finding, he merely argues that the trial court 

should have seen it in a different light. The finding is 

supported by the evidence. 

The husband also claims a failure of substantial 

credible evidence to support the trial court's finding that 

he drank excessively. He contends that the trial court 

ignored evidence he presented to show that he has held a 

steady job with progressions in grade and that he has no 

record of alcohol-related arrests. He points out that his 

checkbook record indicates that he spent only $804 on alcohol 

during the year prior to the separation, an amount he argues 

is not excessive. He argues that the trial court ignored his 

witnesses and favored his wife's witnesses. We have said 

before that when the trial court decides to accept the 

testimony of one party over the other, that determination 

will stand unless it is clearly erroneous. Creon v. Creon 

(1981) - Mont. - , 635 P.2d 1308, 38 St.Rep. 1828. The 

trial court's findings are supported by substantial credible 

evidence and we will not disturb them. 

The husband next contends that the trial court, in 

making the property distribution, failed to take into 

consideration the husband's contributions and inheritance. 

He claims that the trial court overlooked the fact that he 

received an inheritance of $6,600 from his father, that he 

had an interest in a service station before the marria.ge, 

that he has worked steadily throughout the marriage, and that 
he supervised the construction of the family home. He 

contends on the other hand that the wife had no inheritance, 

has a better and more sta-ble job, has no needs different from 

his, and that she made no extraordinary contribution to the 

marriage. 

The trial court clearly took the husband's contributions 

into account in the property distribution. Other factors 

which a trial court must take into account in dividing 

marital property are set out in section 40-4-202, MCA. The 

trial court considered all of these factors and incorporated 

them into the findings and conclusions. The reasons for 

making the unequal property distribution were clearly set 

forth. 

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 

We Concur: 

-- Chief Justice