No. 14805 

I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

I ARTINA GOHNER, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

-vs1 EMANUEL GOHNER , 

Respondent and Appellant. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

J. F. Meglen and Charles A. Murray, Jr., Billings, Montana 

~ For Respondent : 

Berger, Anderson, Sinclair and Murphy, Billings, Montana 

Submitted on briefs: September 12, 1979 

Decided: AFR 1 - 1s 

-. Filed: Er - - ?--:bJ 
Mr. 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 the marriage as a result of a dissolution of the marriage. 

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 

the marriage should be split on a 50-50 basis." But the property 

was not split on a 50-50 basis. Furthermore, there are virtually 

no findings in support of the trial court's distribution plan, 

and thus we are unable to determine how it arrived at its conclusions. We note in this respect that the trial court adopted 

verbatim, the proposed findings and conclusions submitted to 

the court by counsel for the wife. These findings and conclusions 

did not adhere to the trial court's decision to split the 

property on a 50-50 basis. 

The trial court made no findings as to the value of the 

family home. The only reference in the findings to the 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 to findings based on the 

evidence. In its conclusions, the court determined that the 

wife's share of the family home was $14,000, and ordered the 

husband to pay her $14,000 in cash for this interest. Since 

the court intended to divide the property equally, we infer 

that it placed a $28,000 value on the home for purposes of 

distribution. But in any event, there is no evidence in the 

record to support 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 the wife's life insurance check. Each of 

-2- 
the parties received a $5,000 life insurance check as a 

result of their son's service and death in the Armed Forces. 

At the time of the divorce, the husband still had $2,700 

remaining of his $5,000, but the wife 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 were not divided in a fashion to 

achieve a 50-50 split in value. 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 to pay her $962.50 so that the value was equalized. 

But the court then went an additional step and awarded her $1,400 

for the car payment taken from her insurance check. Accordingly, 

the wife received over $3,500, or approximately an 85 percent 

interest in the automobiles. Payment to the wife for money 

taken out of her check is not consistent with the court's 

determination that it would divide the marital assets on a 

50-50 basis. This is particularly so in light of the court's 

award to the wife of an equal share in the remainder of the 

husband's check. 

We note moreover, that at the end of the trial, the court 

entered an oral order for the husband to pay the wife's attorney 

fees. Time and time again we have stated that written findings 

are required to establish both the wife's necessity for payment 

from the husband, and to establish 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