NO. 90-030 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1990 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

LINDA L. COOPER, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

and 

ROBERT T. COOPER, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 3 _ 

7 Brett C. Asselstine, Great Falls, Montana > 

'For Respondent: 

Kenneth R. Olson, Great Falls, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: April 26, 1990 

i-.'-! .. . ,-. > -. Decided: May 25, 1990 Fil$d: .-,L 0 

*P"". 

3 4 Q , , 5, ,f +? 

, &, ,:,.g fd;.'P .& #',qd \ .. $;t&$2$tb: *f :*.,;.?;:, ,$( . X$,Lj .? ~: <,, $,$ U 

%. * 

Rlerk 
Justice Diane G. Barz delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Robert Cooper appeals from the decree of the District Court 

of the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, dissolving his 

marriage to Linda Cooper and distributing marital assets. We 

affirm. 

When the parties met in 1979, Robert was a Master Sergeant in 

the united States Army with a wife and three children living in 

Georgia. Robert had been in the service for approximately eighteen 

years at that time. Linda had two sons from a previous marriage. 

Robert and Linda resided together sporadically beginning in October 

of 1979. Upon his retirement from the military in November 1981, 

Robert returned to Georgia to attempt a reconciliation with his 

wife. This effort failed and Robert was divorced in June, 1983. 

Robert was ordered to pay his ex-wife child support of $200 per 

month per child until his oldest child attained majority and $200 

per month alimony thereafter until her death or remarriage. 

Robert's ex-wife relinquished all claims to his military pension 

and Veterans Administration disability benefits in exchange for the 

balance of the marital assets. 

The District Court found that: 

[b] etween October of 1979 until . . . [Robert] 

retired in November of 1981 the parties lived 

together in . . . [Linda's] residence. She 

was the homemaker and her income provided the 

husband with many of his necessities, 

including a down payment to purchase a car, 

house payments to [Robert's] first wife in 

Georgia, direct payments of cash to him, car 
payments and payments on his VISA credit Card 

Account . . . During this time . . . [Robert] 

was completing his last two years for his 

eligibility for his military retirement 

pension. During this period . . . [Linda] 

made all the lease payments on the residence 

and paid all of the household expenses. 

[Robert's] contribution consisted of the 

purchase of some groceries. 

The parties were married on December 30, 1983. No children 

were born of the marriage. The District Court determined the 

marital estate consisted of real and personal property with a value 

of $102,825.49. The District Court found Robert had dissipated a 

significant portion of the marital estate through gambling. At the 

time of trial, Linda's monthly net take-home pay was approximately 

$1,232.72 and she received $300 per month child support. Linda's 

monthly expenses were $1,519.44. Robert received his military 

pension of $800 per month and disability benefits of $133 per month 

in addition to his salary from K-Mart averaging approximately 

$20,000 per year. While the District Court made no specific 

finding regarding Robert's monthly income, it appears to have been 

roughly $1,900 per month. Robert's monthly expenses were 

$1,616.83. Robert will be entitled to pension benefits from KMart should he retire from his employment there. 

The District Court awarded Linda assets with a value totalling 

$44,321.49 and debt totalling $42,002 for a net distribution of 

$2,319.49. Robert received assets with a value of $68,504 and 

indebtedness of $31,584 for a net distribution of $36,920. Linda 

received the family home and liability for the accompanying 
mortgage while Robert was required to retire the home improvement 

loan. Robert was also required to pay Linda $10,000 as part of the 

marital estate in lieu of maintenance or alimony. The value of 

Robert's military pension and disability benefits were included as 

marital assets although neither was distributed to Linda. 

Robert raises the following issues on appeal: 

1. Was the District Court's requirement that Robert pay the 

home improvement loan because he dissipated a portion of the 

marital estate an abuse of discretion? 

2. Did the District Court err by failing to add Robert's 

payment of the home improvement loan to Linda's share of the 

marital assets? 

3. Did the District Court properly include Robert's military 

pension and disability benefits as assets of the marital estate? 

4. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in ordering 

Robert to pay Linda $10,000 as part of the marital estate in lieu 

of maintenance or alimony? 

We have reiterated the standard of review in dissolution cases 

many times: The district court has great latitude in distributing 

marital property and findings of fact and conclusions of law 

supported by substantial credible evidence will not be overturned 

on appeal unless they constitute an abuse of discretion. In re 

Marriage of Cannon (Mont. 1990) , P.2d -, I 47 St.Rep. 752, 

755. 

Section 40-4-202(1), MCA, provides: 

4 
In a proceeding for dissolution of a marriage, 

legal separation, or division of property 

following a decree of dissolution of marriage 

or legal separation by a court which lacked 

personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse 

or lacked jurisdiction to divide the property, 

the court, without regard to marital 

misconduct, shall, and in a proceeding for 

legal separation may, finally equitably 

apportion between the parties the property and 

assets belonging to either or both, however 

and whenever acquired and whether the title 

thereto is in the name of the husband or wife 

or both. In making apportionment, the court 

shall consider the duration of the marriage 

and prior marriage of either party; the age, 

health, station, occupation, amount and 

sources of income, vocational skills, 

employability, estate, liabilities, and needs 

of each of the parties; custodial provisions; 

whether the apportionment is in lieu of or in 

addition to maintenance; and the opportunity 

of each for future acquisition of capital 

assets and income. The court shall also 

consider the contribution or dissipation of 

value of the respective estates and the 

contribution of a spouse as a homemaker or to 

the family unit. In dividing property 

acquired prior to the marriage; property 

acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent; 

the increased value of property acquired prior 

to marriage; and property acquired by a spouse 

after a decree of legal separation, the court 

shall consider those contributions of the 

other spouse to the marriage, including: 

(a) the nonmonetary contribution of a 

homemaker; 

(b) the extent to which such contributions 

have facilitated the maintenance of this 

property; and 

(c) whether or not the property division 

serves as an alternative to maintenance 

arrangements. 

Following our review of the record we conclude the District 
Court had substantial credible evidence upon which to base its 

findings of fact. The first two issues concern the District 

Court's distribution of the home improvement loan. While we find 

the District Court did not erroneously conclude Robert dissipated 

a portion of the marital estate, that finding was not crucial in 

justifying the court's allocation of the home improvement debt to 

Robert. Linda's net distribution was little over $2,000, Robert's 

was in excess of $36,000. The District Court properly ordered 

Robert to assume this debt. Even if Robert's assumption of this 

debt were included in Linda's assets, her net distribution would 

still be far less than Robert's. The District Court did not err 

in failing to add this assumption of debt into Linda's net 

distribution. 

Robert's third citation of error concerns the inclusion of 

his military pension and disability benefits in the marital estate. 

It is well settled that military retirement benefits are a marital 

asset. In re the Marriage of Luisi (1988), 232 Mont. 243, 246, 756 

P.2d 456, 458-59. As concerns the disability benefits, the 

District Court may properly include in the marital estate any 

property I1however and whenever acquired." Section 40-4-202(1), 

MCA. The District Court awarded no portion of either asset to 

Linda. Both the military pension and disability benefits were 

properly included in the marital estate. 

Finally, Robert asserts the lower court erred in requiring 

that he pay Linda $10,000 as part of the marital estate in lieu of 

6 
maintenance or alimony. Section 40-4-202(1), MCA, clearly 

anticipates an award of property in lieu of maintenance. We note 

once again the disparity between the parties' respective net 

distributions. The District Court properly ordered the $10,000 

payment. 

Affirmed. 

Justice 2'7 

We concur: