No. DA 06-0070

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2006 MT 222N

_______________________________________ TAMMY ANN GORDON, Petitioner and Respondent,

v. BILLY JAMES GORDON, Respondent and Appellant.

______________________________________ APPEAL FROM: District Court of th e Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 04-1194 The Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Benjamin J. LaBeau, LaBeau Law Firm, Billings, Montana For Respondent: George T. Radovich, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana

____________________________________ Submitted on Briefs: August 23, 2006 Decided: September 6, 2006

Filed:

______________________________________ ClerkJustice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Para graph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disp osition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable ca ses published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Billy James Gordon (Billy) appe als from the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and order dissolving hi s marriage to Tammy Ann Gordon (Tammy) and dividing the parties’ mar ital estate. Billy and Tammy were married for twenty-four years and living in Yellowstone County at the time that they filed for dissolution. They

had no minor children. The District Court held a trial on the parties’ petition for dissolution on April 15, 2005. Both partie s submitted proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law. The District Cour t entered its Order on August 25, 2005. ¶3 The parties’ residence and twenty acres co nstituted the bulk of the marital estate. The District Court awarded it to Tammy. The District Court divided the remaining assets nearly equally between Billy and Tammy. The District Cour t also divided the parties’ liabilities. The District Court assigned mo st of the liabilities to Tammy, including a mortgage on the residence and twenty acres that it had awar ded to Tammy. The District

Court noted that the distributi on is “nearly equal” and that to the extent that it favors Tammy, “it is also noted that she assumes a credit card debt which is a short term, high

2interest debt, while Billy only assumes debt on secured assets.” Billy appeals the District

Court’s distribution. ¶4 Billy argues that the District Cour t erroneously adopted Tammy’s amended proposed findings of fact and c onclusions of law. He conced es that nothing prohibits the District Court from adopting th e prevailing party’s proposed findings, but argues that any proposed findings must be “sufficiently comp rehensive and pertinen t to the issues to provide a basis for decision” and be supported by the evidence. Hurley v. Hurley , 222 Mont. 287, 296, 721 P.2d 1279, 1285 (1986). He contends that the District Court’s adoption of Tammy’s findi ngs led to a “patently unfair resu lt.” Billy further contends the District Court fails to suppor t its findings of fact with s ubstantial evidence, that the District Court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, and made various mistakes. Finally, Billy argues the District Court abused its discretion in determining the contents of the marital estate, the net worth of the marital estate, th e distribution of the marital estate, and the valuation of those distributions. ¶5 We review a district court’s order an d dissolution proceedi ngs to determine whether the court acted arbitrarily, without employment of conscientious judgment, or

exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in subs tantial injustice. Collins v. Collins, 2004 MT 365, ¶ 16, 324 Mont. 500, ¶ 16, 104 P.3d 1059, ¶ 16. The district court possesses discretion to adopt any reasonable valuati on of property supported by the record. In re Marriage of Bee , 2002 MT 49, ¶ 34, 309 Mont. 34 , ¶ 34, 43 P.3d 903, ¶ 34. The omission of a particular item from the di stribution does not necessarily constitute reversible error if the district court’s finding s as a whole are sufficient to determine that

3the distribution of the marita l estate was equitable. In re Marriage of Harkin , 2000 MT 105, ¶ 31, 299 Mont. 298, ¶ 31, 999 P.2d 969, ¶ 31. ¶6 We have determined to deci de this case pursuant to S ection I, paragraph 3(d), of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the fa ce of the briefs and record before us that substantial evidence supports the District Court’ s findings of fact, that the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Mont ana law that the District Cour t correctly interpreted, and

that there was no abuse of discre tion by the District Court. ¶7 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS

We Concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART /S/ JOHN WARNER

4