No. 93-381 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1994 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

BARBARA K. BARTZ, 

Petitioner and Respondent, : 

and 

GARY C. BARTZ, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable John S. Henson, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Clinton H. Kammerer, Kammerer Law Offices, 

Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Byron W. Boggs, Attorney at Law, 

Missoula, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: April 7, 1994 

Decided: April 13, 1994 
Justice William E. Hunt. Sr., delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Appellant Gary Bartz appeals from the Fourth Judicial 

District, Missoula County, regarding the District Court's division 

of marital assets and award of maintenance to petitioner Barbara 

Bartz . 

We affirm. 

The issues on appeal are: 

1. Did the District Court err in failing to consider the net 

worth of the parties before dividing the property and debts? 

2. Did the District Court err in awarding maintenance to 

petitioner? 

Gary and Barbara were married for 16 years with no children 

born during the marriage. During the marriage, the parties 

acquired equipment, personal property, and two parcels of land in 

Potomac, Montana. The parties submitted personal property values 

to the special master. Gary's estimate was $52,769.62, and 

Barbara's estimate was $65,855.62. Both parties omitted Gary's 

Champion retirement account providing a yearly annuity of $1,548 

when Gary reaches age 65. The parties agreed marital debts totaled 

$39,248. 

After the special master submitted her recommendations to the 

District Court, a hearing was held wherein Gary disputed these 

recommendations, arguing that the special master failed to 

adequately consider the net worth of the marital estate resulting 

in an inequitable property division to him. 
The District Court adopted the special master's findings that 

Gary's logging business provided an estimated 1992 gross income of 

approximately $75,000, with a net income of approximately $25,000, 

and Barbara presently earns approximately $750 per month, plus 

$2,000 per year in tips as a bartender in Potomac. The court also 

found that during Gary's self-employment, the parties' income 

gradually increased over the past five years from $5,644 in 1988, 

to $35,907 in 1991, and beginning in 1986, Barbara managed the 

books for Gary's logging business and worked inside the home as a 

homemaker. 

Gary was awarded real and personal property totaling between 

$47,000 and $52,604, the Champion retirement account totaling 

$3,500, and debts totaling $28,693. The court awarded Barbara real 

and personal property totaling $45,165.31, debts totaling 

$13,773.56, and awarded her $400 monthly maintenance for 24 months. 

Gary appeals. 

ISSUE 1 

Did the District Court err in failing to consider the net 

worth of the parties before dividing the property and debts? 

The District Court provided values and debts owed for both 

real and personal property. The first parcel of the real property 

was valued at $32,500, which includes a mobile home, shop, and 

property improvements, and had no debt attached; however, $3,218.56 

remained on a loan acquired to construct the shop on the parcel. 

The second parcel was unimproved and was valued at $12,500, with a 

$6,000 debt attached. Gary's equipment necessary to his logging 

3 
business was valued at $35,380. In Finding of Fact No. 23, the 

court stated that the total personal property value was between 

$52,769.62 and $65,855.62, "depending upon whose calculations the 

court accepts." Total marital debts were $39,248. The court also 

adopted the following findings of fact for the property 

distribution and debt allocation to Barbara: 

ASSETS : 

Marital home and five acre tract $32,500.00 

Personal property from Exhibit "Ap1 $12,665.31 

Total assets: $45,165.51 

DEBTS : 

Loan to construct shop $ 3,218.56 

Debts $10,055.00 

Total debts $13,773.56 

The court adopted the following findings of fact for property 

distribution for Gary, providing both Gary's and Barbara's 

estimated values for the personal property. 

Gary's estimates: 

ASSETS 

Five acre tract (unimproved) $12,500.00 

Personal assets from Exhibit *'A1' $ 4,724.31 

Business assets from Exhibit "As' $35,380.00 

Total assets: $52,604.31 

DEBTS : 

Debts 

Barbara's estimates: 

ASSETS 

Five acre tract (unimproved) $12,500.00 

Personal assets from Exhibit "Af' $ 6,190.31 

Business assets from Exhibit "AM $47,000.00 

Total assets: $65,690.31 

DEBTS : 

Debts 
Gary was also awarded the Champion retirement which he valued at 

$3,500. 

Gary argues that the District Court failed to compute net 

worth before dividing the property because the District Court did 

not state the marital estate net value in its findings of fact, and 

in failing to do so, Barbara was awarded the entire estate. We 

disagree. 

The district court must distribute the marital property fairly 

by using common sense; when the courtts judgment is based on 

substantial credible evidence, this Court will uphold that decision 

unless there is clear abuse of discretion. Marriage of Scoffield 

(l993), 258 Mont. 337, 342, 852 P.2d 664, 668. Before dividing the 

marital estate, the court is required to make findings of fact on 

all marital assets and liabilities from which can be established a 

net worth of the marital estate. Marriage of Dirnberger (1989), 

237 Mont. 398, 773 P. 2d 330. We do not require the exact net worth 

amount to be stated in the findings of fact where "the cumulative 

effect of the findings can be equivalent to a finding of net worth 

when relevant factors are considered and adequately set forth by 

the trial court." Marriage of Skinner (1989), 240 Mont. 299, 304, 

783 P.2d 1350, 1353 (quoting Marriage of Hunter (1982), 196 Mont. 

235, 245, 639 P.2d 489, 494). 

Before dividing the marital estate, the District Court 

considered both partiest personal property estimates and found that 

the total personal property value was between $52,769.62 and 

$65,855.62, and found debts totaled $39,248. In doing so, the 

5 
court considered relevant factors and adequately set forth these 

findings sufficient to allow a finding of net worth. 

Gary was awarded real property worth $12,500, including the 

debt of $6,000, resulting in a net value of $6,500. If Gary's 

personal property values are used, then he received personal 

property worth $40,104.31. He was allocated debts totaling 

$22,693, resulting in a personal property net value to Gary of 

$17,411.31, with a net total of $23,911.31, which is increased to 

$27,411.31 after adding his $3,500 Champion retirement account. If 

Barbara's values for the personal property are used, Gary receives 

real and personal property with a net value of $36,997.31, plus the 

Champion Retirement of $3,500, for a net total of $40,497.31. 

Depending on which personal property value is used for the personal 

property awarded to Gary, he receives slightly less or more than 

Barbara. We hold that the District Court considered the net worth 

of the marital property before dividing the property. 

Gary next argues that he received an inequitable property 

division. We disagree. 

No formula exists to determine exact distributions and each 

case is decided on its own merits, therefore, a court is not 

required to make a 50/50 division of the marital estate if the 

distribution would be inequitable. Marriage of Herron (1980), 186 

Mont. 396, 401-02, 608 P.2d 97, 100. Here, the marital estate 

consisted of three large assets: the real property with the marital 

home, the undeveloped real property, and the logging business. The 

remaining personal property was divided by the parties. The only 
income producing asset was the logging business. The court awarded 

Gary the logging business, which is reasonable because he has the 

skill necessary to continue the logging business. After awarding 

Gary the income producing asset, and to fairly apportion the 

remaining real property, the court awarded Barbara the real 

property with the marital home, and Gary the undeveloped real 

property. The court's division of the marital property was based 

on substantial credible evidence. We hold that the court did not 

abuse its discretion when it determined the marital property 

division. 

ISSUE 2 

Did the District Court err in awarding maintenance to 

petitioner? 

The District Court awarded maintenance to Barbara, stating 

that although she was awarded a portion of the real and personal 

property, she still lacks sufficient property to provide for her 

reasonable needs with her monthly income of $750 and her monthly 

expenses of $780. The court found that since Gary's gross income 

increased to $75,000 in 1992, and his monthly expenses were 

$3,435.56, he has the financial ability to assist Barbara in her 

transition from their married life to life as a single person. The 

court ordered that Gary would pay Barbara monthly maintenance of 

$400 for 24 months. 

Gary argues that the District Court erred in awarding 

maintenance because it did not make its findings pursuant to 

5 40-4-203, MCA. He asserts that Barbara's testimony reveals she 

7 
is capable of earning more than the court determined because in 

years prior to 1991 she was earning more than Gary in his new 

logging business, and that she presently has the following job 

skills, including her job as a bartender: certified central 

processing technician; motel maid; and bookkeeper. He also argues 

that he is unable to pay her $400 monthly maintenance because he 

was given debts of approximately $29,000 which must be paid on a 

monthly basis. Gary contends the evidence reveals that the 

District Court's decision was an abuse of discretion resulting in 

substantial injustice. We disagree. 

The standard of review for maintenance is whether there is a 

clear abuse of discretion resulting in substantial injustice. 

Marriage of Loegering (1984), 212 Mont. 499, 689 P.2d 260. 

Section 40-4-203 (1) (a) and (b) , MCA, provides in pertinent 

part: 

(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage . . . the court may grant a maintenance order for either 

spouse only if it finds that the spouse seeking 

maintenance: 

(a) lacks sufficient property to provide for his 

reasonable needs; and 

(b) is unable to support himself through 

appropriate employment . . . . When applying the factors in § 40-4-203, MCA, to determine 

whether to grant maintenance, the district court considers the 

standard of living achieved by the parties during the marriage. 

Also, maintenance may be used to gain equitable distributions in 

the many diverse fact situations within marital dissolutions, thus 
wide discretion is granted to the court. Marriage of Silverman 

(1993), 259 Mont. 337, 340, 856 P.2d 533, 535. 

In Silverman, this Court upheld the district court's award of 

maintenance to the wife, although she was employed and was awarded 

the family home with $15,000 in equity, $64,650 in cash, and other 

personal property for the following reasons: the parties had 

maintained a luxurious standard of living while they were married; 

the husband's income continued to be quite high while the wife's 

income was modest; and the wife had incurred substantial expenses 

by her move back to Arizona to resume employment. Silverman, 856 

P.2d at 535. 

Here, Gary testified that the couple enjoyed a comfortable 

lifestyle due to the income from the logging business. Gary, 

having been awarded the income-producing asset, could continue to 

earn at least $25,000 in net income per year from the logging 

business, and also has retirement sources, such as social security 

and the Champion retirement account. Barbara, on the other hand, 

would have to support herself with a net income of $5,000 to $6,000 

per year with little social security benefits and without any other 

supplements. The District Court found that Barbara did not receive 

sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs and that 

any possibility of wage increase by locating employment in 

Missoula, would be diminished by commuting expenses from Potomacto 

Missoula. After 16 years of marriage, the $400 award of 

maintenance for two years is reasonable in light of all the 
circumstances. Beyond these two years Barbara is left to her own 

devices. 

We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion 

in awarding $400 maintenance for the two year period. 

Affirmed. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result 

to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company. 

We concur: 
June 7. 1994 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following certified order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, 

to the following named: 

Clinton H. Kamerer 

Kammerer Law Offices, P.C. 

101 E. Broadway, Ste. 200 

Missoula, MT 59802 

Byron W. Boggs 

Attorney at Law 

336 Ryman 

Missoula, MT 59802 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA