No. 87-94 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1987 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

WERNER W. BULTMAN, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

and 

TERESA V. BULTMAN, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Silver Bow, 

The Honorable Mark Sullivan, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

James J. Masar, Deer Lodge, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Deirdre Caughlan, Butte, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: June 18, 1987 

Decided: August 18, 1987 

Filed: ~~~181987 
Mr. Justice L. C. Gulbrandson delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

The wife appeals a property distribution order of the 

Silver Bow County District Court. The issues on appeal are: 

(1) whether the District Court erred in dividing the 

wife's stock inheritance equally between the parties; and 

(2) whether the District Court improperly referred to 

marital misconduct in its findings. We affirm. 

The parties married in 1948 and a decree of dissolution 

of marriage was entered in 1986. The husband was a carpenter 

and the wife taught school. Both parties are now retired. 

During the marriage, the husband inherited real property from 

his family on which the family home and a shop was 

constructed, and the wife inherited stock from her family. 

The parties separated at the time the husband was placed in 

the Galen State Hospital. The husband was not allowed to 

return to the family home and he is currently residing in 

Butte, Montana. The wife remained in the family home and 

controlled the parties' assets until the property division 

hearing. The husband lived on his social security disability 

payments while he was away from home. We note that the 

husband's monthly income was $166 short of his expenses. The 

court decided that the parties' real property should be sold 

and the proceeds divided equally with the provision that 

until the family home was sold, the wife could continue to 

occupy the home. The court further decided that the parties' 

liquid assets, including the stock, should likewise be 

divided equally. 

The first issue is whether the District Court erred in 

dividing the wife's stock inheritance equally between the 

parties. 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. In Re 

Marriage of Kaasa (1979), 181 Mont. 28, 22, 591 P.2d 1110, 

1113. Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly 

erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity 

of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. 

In Re Marriage of Obergfell (Mont. 1985), 708 P.2d 561, 563, 

42 St.Rep. 1414, 1417-1418. 

Section 40-4-202, MCA, states in part: 

[tl he court . . . may . . . equitably 

apportion between the parties the 

property and assets belonging to either 

or both, however and whenever acquired 

and whether the title thereto is in the 

name of the husband or wife or both. 

(Emphasis added.) 

The statute also states that in the apportionment process the 

court shall consider the sources of income. Section 

40-4-202, MCA, is of necessity a flexible statute which vests 

a good deal of discretion in the district court. Given the 

infinite varieties of factual situations presented by parties 

to dissolution proceedings, trial judges must enjoy the 

latitude to address each case individually with an eye to its 

unique circumstances. In Re Marriage of Hundtoft (Mont. 

1987), 732 P.2d 401, 402, 44 St.Rep. 204, 205. 

The wife argues that the stock gifted to her by her 

family during the marriage should not be equally divided 

between the parties since the husband did not add to its 

value during the marriage. We again emphasize that 

S 40-4-202, MCA, authorizes the trial court dividing the 

marital estate to consider the sources of income and all 

property and assets, however and whenever acquired. The 

facts here reveal that the assets were commingled and held 

jointly and that all property, including the stock, was 

acquired during the marriage. Following the statute, the 
court noted that the stock (worth $34,400), was inherited 

from the wife's family and the real property (worth $92,570) 

was inherited from the husband's family. We believe the 

court considered each party's contribution to the marital 

estate and correctly exercised its discretion under 

5 40-4-202, MCA. We see no reason to disturb the ruling on 

this issue. 

The second issue is whether the District Court 

improperly referred to marital misconduct in its findings. 

Section 40-4-202, MCA, prevents a court from considering 

marital misconduct in property division proceedings. The 

wife cites as evidence the court's reference to the husband's 

placement in Galen Hospital by the wife and the fact that the 

husband was not permitted to return to the family home, nor 

was he entitled. access to the parties' liquid assets until 

the property division hearing. We do not believe this is 

improper comment on marital misconduct. To the contrary, 

these findings help to explain the court's decision to order 

the sale of the family home and divide the proceeds equally 

in the interests of both parties. 

A' 

Affirmed. 

&pa&+ Justices