### No. 14805 

# I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

# I ARTINA GOHNER, Petitioner and Respondent,
-vs

# 1 EMANUEL GOHNER

## , Respondent and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. 

# I Counsel of Record: For Appellant: J. F. Meglen and CharlesA. 

### Murray, Jr., Billings,Montana 

## ~ For Respondent: 

# I Berger,Anderson, Sinclair and Murphy, Billings,Montana

Submitted on briefs: September 12, 1979 Decided: 

## AFR1

# - 1s

-. 

### Filed: 

### Er 

### - 

## - ?--:bJMr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The husband, Emmanuel Gohner, appeals from a judgment of the Yellowstone County District Court distributing the assets of themarriage 

### as a result of a dissolution of themarriage. At

### trial, the court stated that 

### it would divide the assets evenly between the parties, and the court's first conclusion of law 

### states: "the property accumulated by the parties during themarriage should be spliton a 50-50 basis." But the property
was not spliton a 50-50 basis. Furthermore, there are virtually
no findings insupport of the trial court's distributionplan, and thus we areunable todetermine how 

### it arrived at

### its conclusions. Wenote inthis respect that the trial court adopted verbatim, theproposed findings and conclusions submitted to the court by counsel for the wife. These findings and conclusions did not adhere tothe trialcourt's decision tosplitthe property on a 50-50 basis. The 

### trial court made no findings as tothevalue of the family home. The only reference in the findings tothe home is that the home had been appraised at $26,500 and that certain realtors had listed it for $34,000. This constitutes only a recitation of the evidence 

### as opposed tofindings based on the evidence. In 

### its conclusions, the court determined that the wife's shareof the family home 

### was $14,000, and ordered the husband topay her $14,000 incash for this interest. Since the court intended todivide theproperty equally, 

### we infer that 

### it placed 

### a $28,000 value on the home forpurposes of distribution. But in any event, there is no evidence in the record tosupport that determination. Nor did the trial court make an equal division of the personal property. The court's error concerns a $1,400 car payment taken from thewife's lifeinsurance check. Each of -2-the parties received a $5,000 life insurance check 

### as a result of their son's service and death in theArmed Forces. Atthe 

### timeof the divorce, the husband 

### still had $2,700 remaining of his $5,000, but thewife had nothing remaining from her $5,000. The trial court ordered that the remaining $2,700 be evenly divided between the parties. But the automobiles 

### werenot divided in a fashion to achieve a 50-50 split invalue. Value of the vehicles was 

### set at $4,225. An equal division would give $2,112.50 interest to each. The wife received her equal amount of $2,112.50 when the court awarded her with a $1,150 Volkswagen and ordered the husband topay her $962.50 so that the value 

### was equalized. But the court then went an additional step and awarded her $1,400 for the carpayment taken from her insurance check. Accordingly, the wife received over $3,500, or approximately an 85 percent interest

### in the automobiles. Payment 

### to thewife for money taken out of her check 

### is not consistentwith the court's determination that it would divide themarital assets on a 50-50 basis. This 

### is particularly so in light of the court's award tothewife of an equal share in the remainder of the husband's check. We note moreover, that atthe end of the trial, the court entered an oral order for the husband topay the wife's attorney fees. Time and 

### time again

### we have stated that written findings


### are required toestablish both the wife's necessity forpayment from the husband, and toestablish the reasonableness of the fees. This was not done. The judgment is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

### n to, K,

### We Concur:

Chief Justice