No. 85-578 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1986 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

DONALD E. SINGER, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

and 

GEORGIA J. SINGER, 

Respondent and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin, 

The Honorable Joseph B. Gary, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Kelly M. Hogan, Bozeman, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Gregory 0. Morgan, Bozeman, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: May 15, 1986 

Decided: July 151 1986 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Donald E. Singer (husband) appeals the findings of fact, 

conclusions of law and judgment of the Eighteenth Judicial 

District Court distributing his and his ex-wife's, Georgia J. 

Singer (wife), marital property. The sole issue raised on 

appeal is whether the District Court equitably apportioned 

the marital estate pursuant to § 40-4-202, MCA. We find the 

apportionment to be equitable and affirm the decision of the 

trial judge. 

Husband filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage 

in April of 1983. The hearing was held December 4, 1983. At 

that time, the parties had been married for approximately 35 

years. Husband was 55 years of age and a retired civil 

service employee. His formal education had ended after the 

eighth grade. Wife was 56 years of age and an elementary 

education student at Montana State University. 

The only income of the parties was passive. Husband 

received approximately $913.15 a month in retirement 

benefits. He also worked odd-jobs as a handyman. Pursuant 

to a stipulation entered into pending dissolution of the 

marriage, wife received $200 a month maintenance, $375 a 

month rental income from the parties' California home and 

$251 a month from a ranch mortgage, for a total of $821 a 

month. The trial judge later found the expenses of each 

party to be approximately $1000 a month. 

Following the hearing and husband's petition to amend, 

the trial judge divided the marital estate as follows: 

ITEM HUSBAND 

California Residence 

WIFE 

$ 50,000.00 
Ponderosa Pines Property 

Mobile Home 

Mobile Home Furnishings 

Coachman Trailer 

Subaru 

Chevy Pickup 

Ranch Mortgage 

Alliance Stock 

K-Mart Stock 

Tools 

NASA Retirement (70%) 

NASA Retirement (30%) 

TOTAL 

Further, husband was ordered to pay $150 a month to wife 

as maintenance until March of 1987 or her graduation from 

college, whichever occurs first. 

The amount of monthly payments as a. result of the 

division of the parties' assets was determined by the trial 

judge to be $926 to wife and $700 to husband. Husband 

disagrees, stating that the judge failed to include wife's 

maintenance award of $150. Therefore, husband alleges, the 

monthly payments are actually $1076 to wife and $550 to 

husband. 

Maintenance is an award separate and distinct from the 

division of marital assets. See SS 40-4-202 and -203, MCA. 

Granted, the amount of marital property awarded is to be 

considered in awarding maintenance. Section 40-4-203 (2) (a) , 

MCA. Vivian v. Vivian (1978), 178 Mont. 341, 345, 583 P.2d 

1072, 1075. However, wife will receive no maintenance 

payments after March 1987. The payments are merely a 

temporary device, established to assist wife in her efforts 
to support herself. Maintenance for this purpose is clearly 

permissible. Section 40-4-203 (2) (b) , MCA. Peckenpaugh v. 

Peckenpaugh (Mont. 1982), 201 Mont. 314, 319, 655 P.2d 144, 

146. In light of wife's devotion of 35 years of her life to 

husband and their family and wife's efforts to become 

self-supporting, the maintenance award is certainly not 

excessive. Nor is it of such magnitude to warrant 

diminishment of wife's portion of the marital estate. 

Husband also alleges error in the trial judge's decision 

to award wife 30% of husband's retirement benefits. Again, 

we find no error. Husband a.ccumulated his retirement 

benefits while married to wife. At the same time, wife was 

foregoing employment, and the attendant retirement benefits, 

to raise the family and care for husband. Wife will have 

been in the work-force for less than ten years when she 

reaches retirement age. Her retirement benefits will 

therefore be minuscule. Her past contributions to the family 

and to husband entitle her to share in husband's retirement 

security. 

Absent a clear abuse of discretion by the trial judge in 

applying the relevant factors of $5 40-4-202 and -203, MCA, 

we will not disturb the trial judge's findings, conclusions 

and judgment. Reese v. Reese (1979), 185 Mont. 52, 55, 604 

P.2d 326, 328. We find no abuse of discretion. 

Affirmed. 

We Concur: .A