No. 86-339 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1987 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

ARLIE HANCOCK, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

and 

WATSON LEROY HANCOCK, 

Respondent and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Tipp, Hoven, Skjelset & Frizzell; Douglas G. Skjelset, 

Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Edward A. Cummings, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: Feb. 5, 1987 

Decided: April 16, 1987 

Filed: APR 1 6 1987 
Mr. Justice L. C. Gulbrandson delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Arlie Hancock (the wife) appeals a Missoula County 

District Court order which divides the main marital asset (a 

ranch) between the parties in this dissolution of marriage 

action. The single issue on appeal is whether in dividing 

the ranch the lower court abused its discretion by requiring 

the respondent, Mr. Watson Hancock, to divide the ranch into 

two parts and allowing Mrs. Hancock the choice of which part 

she wanted. We affirm. 

This appeal is the culmination of ten years of bitter 

dispute over the division of the ranch. In March 1977, Mrs. 

Hancock filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In 

February 1978, the District Court entered a decree dissolving 

the marriage. In September 1978, the court entered judgment 

dividing most of the marital assets between the parties and 

providing for the division of the ranch. That judgment 

(1) ordered the parties to obtain a survey and a plat 

partitioning the ranch into two parcels; (2) provided that 

Mrs. Hancock could choose whichever parcel she desired for 

her own; and (3) ordered the ranch sold within 120 days of 

the judgment if the parties could not agree on partition. 

Unfortunately, the parties could not agree on how to 

partition the ranch nor, apparently, on an asking price for 

the ranch. Thus, for years the parties made no progress in 

either dividing or selling the ranch. In September 1985, 

after a number of hearings, the Missoula County District 

Court issued an order which stated that (1) the parties had 

insufficient funds to pay a surveyor to divide the ranch into 

two tracts of equal value; (2) a judicial sale might bring in 

less than fair market value or might permit one party to 

purchase the ranch at a low cost; and (3) an equitable means 
of partitioning the ranch would be for Mrs. Hancock to divide 

the land into two parts and for Mr. Hancock to choose the 

parcel he desired. The court gave the parties an opportunity 

to comment on the proposed procedure. In response, Mrs. 

Hancock's counsel proposed that each of the parties should 

recommend a dividing line for the property. The court could 

then select the plan of one of the parties and the other 

party would choose one of the two parcels. Mrs. Hancock's 

counsel also objected to the court's proposed plan by 

pointing out that the September 1978 judgment provided that 

she (rather than Mr. Hancock) would get her choice of the 

parcels. Counsel complained that the court had taken this 

right away from Mrs. Hancock. In January 1986, the court 

modified its September 1985 order by providing that Mr. 

Hancock would propose a division of the property and Mrs. 

Hancock would choose whichever parcel she wanted. 

On January 31, 1986, the parties appeared in court. 

Mr. Hancock drew a line on a map dividing the ranch into two 

parcels. The court recessed and, after approximately one 

hour and 45 minutes of contemplation, Mrs. Hancock chose one 

of the parcels. Several days later, Mrs. Hancock filed a pro 

se motion to reconsider, stating that she made a mistake in 

selecting her half of the ranch. The court denied her motion 

and filed an order dividing the ranch in accordance with the 

choice Mrs. Hancock made on January 31, 1986. This appeal 

followed. 

[A] District Court has far-reaching 

discretion in resolving property 

divisions and its judgment will not be 

altered unless a clear abuse of 

discretion is shown. (Citation omitted.) 

The test for reviewing a District Court's 

discretion is: Did the District Court, 

in the exercise of its discretion act 

arbitrarily without employment of 

conscientious judgment, or exceed the 
bounds of reason in view of all the 

circumstances? (Citation omitted.) 

Buxbaum v. Buxbaum (Mont. 1984), 692 P.2d 411, 414, 41 

St.Rep. 2243, 2246-2247. Under the peculiar circumstances of 

this case, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its 

discretion in dividing the ranch between the parties. The 

District Court found that neither party could afford to pay a 

surveyor to divide the ranch into two equal parcels. Mrs. 

Hancock does not attack this finding. Moreover, prior to the 

partition, Mrs. Hancock did not complain of the basic plan 

proposed by the court. Rather, Mrs. Hancock's objection was 

that in September 1985 the court ordered her to draw the 

dividing line with Mr. Hancock having his choice instead of 

vice versa. She did not object to the method but rather to 

who got the choice of land. Accordingly, the court ordered 

Mr. Hancock to draw the line with Mrs. Hancock having her 

choice. The court allowed her ample time to choose her half 

of the ranch and she was advised by counsel, her daughter and 

a friend. Further, we agree with the lower court that there 

was no evidence that Mrs. Hancock's mental status was 

impaired at the time of her choice. We also agree with the 

lower court that simply ordering the ranch sold at auction 

could result in a substantial loss for the parties. Lastly, 

it is apparent from the record that the parties were 

completely unable to agree on how they could divide the ranch 

between themselves. 

The method employed by the lower court will generally 

result in an equal division. The party drawing the dividing 

line is essentially forced to make an equal partition. 

Otherwise, he risks receiving the smaller parcel left after 

the other party chooses. The ranch in this case was fairly 

small (265 acres) and was familiar to both parties. The line 

drawn was relatively straight and does not demonstrate an 
attempt to confuse Mrs. Hancock. Mrs. Hancock's choice was 

n 

simple. We find no abuse of discretion. 

Affirmed. 

I 

stice 

We Concur: / A 

JA -T+ 

Chief Justice 

Justices